From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/11] Avoid git-fetch in `git-pull .` when possible. Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:08:16 -0800 Message-ID: <7v8xgsxx1r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <9847899e4ba836980dbfed6d0ea1c82f31f21456.1167290864.git.spearce@spearce.org> <20061228073517.GG17867@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 28 09:08:32 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GzqJR-0003i4-I6 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:08:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964959AbWL1IIV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:08:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964960AbWL1IIV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:08:21 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32]:56917 "EHLO fed1rmmtao07.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964959AbWL1IIS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:08:18 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061228080817.GQEF3976.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:08:17 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 488X1W0061kojtg0000000; Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:08:31 -0500 To: "Shawn O. Pearce" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > Users may also now use `git-pull . foo~3` to merge the early part > of branch foo. This was not previously possible as git-fetch does > not know how to fetch foo~3 from a repository. I personally think this is not an improvement, but rather a new source of confusion. If the user wants a local merge, there is 'git-merge'. And the distinction between the commands makes it clear that local merge can merge any commits exactly because they are available locally, while remote fetch+merge needs to choose from what the remote side offers so not arbitrary commits like foo@{3.days.ago} cannot be pulled. Also I thought there was a configuration variable that talks about "remote = ." (didn't I merge that patch -- I do not remember offhand) and I wonder how that interacts with this change. How much performance gain are we talking about here?