On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 17:53, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> man git-pull sayeth >>> >>> In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by >>> git merge FETCH_HEAD. >>> >>> However, I just tried that and it failed rather spectacularly. How do >>> you *really* update your local repo without an extra git fetch step? > >> If you have a "local copy of the remote" setup already that's been >> updated already, you can to the merge directly: >> git merge <branch> >> where a branch would normally be something like: >> origin/master >> or >> origin/REL9_0STABLE > >> That will make a merge commit. Another option, if you're trying to >> keep linear development would be: >> git rebase origin/master > > Yeah, I don't want a merge. I have these config entries (as per our > wiki recommendations): > > [branch "master"] > rebase = true > [branch] > autosetuprebase = always > > and what I really want is to update all my workdirs the same way git > pull would do, but not have to repeat the "git fetch" part. This isn't > only a matter of saving network time, it's that I don't necessarily want > the branch heads moving underneath me for branches I already updated. > > BTW, I've noticed that "git push" will reject an attempt to push an > update in one branch if my other branches are not up to date, even > if I am not trying to push anything for those branches. That's > pretty annoying too; is there a way around that?
I admit I haven't tried it, but won't that get fixed if you push just the current branch? E.g. "git push origin master"? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
