Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction

From: John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net>
To: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Cc: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>,
	git@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 05:38:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEBDL5VWuvuJCptY=J5ZyjpLkkP-+V+xY+Eugtkb7M0NL=Px4A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130524082900.GZ27005@serenity.lan>

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:29 AM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Note that in my email that started this, I tried to be clear that I was
> talking about "git pull" *without a branch name*.  If this user
> explicitly says "git pull remote branch" then I consider that a clear
> indication that they really do mean to perform a merge; I would not
> recommend changing the current behaviour in that case.
>
> If the user just says "git pull" then it is more likely that they are
> just trying to synchronise with the upstream branch, in which case they
> probably don't actually want a merge.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  I was going to write earlier that I
almost wish there was a separate command for getting your local branch
"in sync" with the remote one.

BTW, it also doesn't help that `git pull` is suggested as the answer
anytime a push cannot succeed.  I've warned my users about using `git
pull`, and--unfortunately--they sometimes forget because the advice is
right there in front of them.

I agree with John here: it's a bare `git pull` that is often the
culprit.  Of course, the asymmetry between `git pull` and `git pull
remote branch` is a little bothersome too, but the team does that
*far* less often.

-John