Re: So git pull is shorthand for what exactly?

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
That will apply all the changes in your current branch since the
"merge-base" of origin/master, onto the tip of "origin/master" (and
set your current branch to the result).

And, "git rebase -i" is something you'll probably want to become very
familiar with if you're really trying to keep a strictly linear
development history.

I'll admit to never bothering to try the "single repo/multiple
seperate workdirs" approach, so I can't speak specifically to that.

a.