Re: So git pull is shorthand for what exactly?

Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> writes:
> 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

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?

regards, tom lane