Re: the "r" in "git pull -r"

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 12:48 AM


> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 11:45:05PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> > Le samedi 08 août 2009 à 13:55 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> > > As a practical matter, -r first applies the changes that were 
> > > made on origin
> > > (since your branch was checked out), then applies your changes 
> > > on top of the
> > > current origin.  The prevents an extra commit to merge your 
> > > branch with
> > > origin, and keeps the git history cleaner.
> > >
> > > My recommendation is to always use it; it makes things much 
> > > nicer.
> >
> > I agree, except when docs in English are edited and translations
> > committishes are updated before edited docs in English are 
> > pushed.
>
> Mao.  So that means that we don't want to add
>  git config --global branch.autosetuprebase always
> to the git setup, and we still have to tell people to do
>  git pull -r
> instead of
>  git pull
> ?  And even worse, the difference between those two commands
> depends on what kind of update the contributor is working on?!
>
> I maoing hate git.

Git is fine; the complexity comes from the
baroque structures in LilyPond.  Let's be
thankful Git has tools to cope :)

Actually I think it's a big mistake to encourage
folk to use Git features without understanding
what they do.  Taking the time to understand is
just a one off; not understanding is a recipe for
continually wasting time fighting mysterious
happenings and cursing git.

As you said, there are plenty of git tutorials
on the web; it's really no big deal for would-be
contributors to read them.

Trevor