From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox•net>
To: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo•com>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce•org>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx•de>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses•org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:38:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vfyav8ae1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <951491.40207.qm@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (Luben Tuikov's message of "Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:13:49 -0800 (PST)")
Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo•com> writes:
> --- "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses•org> wrote:
> ...
>> Could you explain a situation where this would be useful?
>
> I don't know how to respond to this question.
>
>> A
>> "parent<-->child" relationship, where there's one upstream branch that
>> is always merged in, is easily handled;
>
> e is the base of natural logarithms.
You lost me here; I am guessing this is some sarcasm not worth
paying attention to, so I'd ignore this part for now.
>> just replace your "git pull parent" by a "git pull", right?
>
> Yes, but I don't want to just type "git-pull", I want to explicitly
> type "git-pull parent" and depending in which branch I'm at, "parent"
> would have identical meaning but would merge a different branch... because
> I'm in a different branch...
>
>> Am I misunderstanding the proposal?
>
> I did give an example of usage in my email to which you replied.
But what confuses me (and I think JBF shares the same confusion
with me) is that you had only one example "parent".
While I understand that it would make sense to define "parent"
for each branch in a downstream developer's workflow, (1) I do
not see the difference between your wording, "parent", and what
we traditionally have called "origin", and (2) I do not think of
relationship other than "parent" ("origin") that is applicable
commonly (in other words, "worth having your 'symbolic'
mechanism for, because it is so commonly applicable") to
branches offhand. Hence, JBF's suggestion to use "git pull"
without using noiseword "parent" or "origin" feels very natural
to me --- if there can be only one valid thing to say, why do
you even have to say it?
Because I do not understand what you would want "parent" for and
why "git pull" is not sufficient, I cannot tell if this would
help solving what you are trying to solve in a different way,
but I suspect a useful thing to have might be a per-branch
alias. For example, we could allow "git merge" without
parameters to alias to "git merge origin/next" when you are on
your 'next' and the same "git merge" could be aliased to "git
merge origin/master" when you are on your 'master'.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-01 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-31 23:47 [PATCH] Docs: update cvs-migration.txt to reflect clone's new default behavior bfields
2006-12-31 23:47 ` [PATCH] Documentation: update git-clone.txt for " bfields
2006-12-31 23:47 ` [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt " bfields
2006-12-31 23:47 ` [PATCH] Documentation: update glossary entry for "origin" bfields
2006-12-31 23:47 ` [PATCH] Documentation: remove master:origin example from pull-fetch-param.txt bfields
2006-12-31 23:47 ` [PATCH] Documentation: update tutorial's discussion of origin bfields
2007-01-01 0:35 ` [PATCH] Documentation: update git-pull.txt for clone's new default behavior Junio C Hamano
2007-01-01 1:12 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-01 1:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-01 3:29 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-01 3:48 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-01 5:13 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-01 5:45 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-01 7:53 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-01 7:38 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2007-01-01 8:19 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-01 13:17 ` Theodore Tso
2007-01-01 23:56 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 1:08 ` Theodore Tso
2007-01-02 2:17 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 3:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 18:39 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-01 21:39 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-01 21:40 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-02 0:01 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 0:10 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-02 0:57 ` Theodore Tso
2007-01-02 1:28 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 6:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 2:09 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 0:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 0:38 ` Jakub Narebski
2007-01-02 2:05 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 3:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 11:31 ` Jakub Narebski
2007-01-02 18:48 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 19:22 ` Jakub Narebski
2007-01-02 19:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-05 23:15 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-05 23:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-05 23:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-06 0:32 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-06 0:22 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-06 1:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-01 23:59 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-01-02 0:06 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-01-02 0:12 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vfyav8ae1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net \
--to=junkio@cox$(echo .)net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx$(echo .)de \
--cc=bfields@fieldses$(echo .)org \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=ltuikov@yahoo$(echo .)com \
--cc=spearce@spearce$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox