At the beginning of the rewrite of git-pull.sh to C, we introduced a
redirection to git-pull.sh if the environment variable
_GIT_USE_BUILTIN_PULL was not defined in order to not break test scripts
that relied on a functional git-pull.
Now that all of git-pull's functionality has been re-implemented in
builtin/pull.c, remove this redirection, and retire the old git-pull.sh
into contrib/examples/.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To enable unambiguous parsing of abbreviated options, bundled short
options, separate form options and to provide consistent usage help, use
git-rev-parse --parseopt for option parsing. With this, simplify the
option parsing code.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While parsing the command-line arguments, git-pull stops parsing at the
first unrecognized option, assuming that any subsequent options are for
git-fetch, and can thus be kept in the shell's positional parameters
list, so that it can be passed to git-fetch via the expansion of "$@".
However, certain functions in git-pull assume that the positional
parameters do not contain any options:
* error_on_no_merge_candidates() uses the number of positional
parameters to determine which error message to print out, and will
thus print the wrong message if git-fetch's options are passed in as
well.
* the call to get_remote_merge_branch() assumes that the positional
parameters only contains the optional repo and refspecs, and will
thus silently fail if git-fetch's options are passed in as well.
* --dry-run is a valid git-fetch option, but if provided after any
git-fetch options, it is not recognized by git-pull and thus git-pull
will continue to run the merge or rebase.
Fix these bugs by teaching git-pull to parse git-fetch's options as
well. Add tests to prevent regressions.
This removes the limitation where git-fetch's options have to come after
git-merge's and git-rebase's options on the command line. Update the
documentation to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since b814da8 (pull: add pull.ff configuration, 2014-01-15) git-pull
supported setting --(no-)ff via the pull.ff configuration value.
However, as it only matches the string values of "true" and "false", it
does not support other boolean aliases such as "on", "off", "1", "0".
This is inconsistent with the merge.ff setting, which supports these
aliases.
Fix this by using the bool_or_string_config function to retrieve the
value of pull.ff.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since b814da8 (pull: add pull.ff configuration, 2014-01-15), running
git-pull with the configuration pull.ff=false or pull.ff=only is
equivalent to passing --no-ff and --ff-only to git-merge. However, if
pull.ff=true, no switch is passed to git-merge. This leads to the
confusing behavior where pull.ff=false or pull.ff=only is able to
override merge.ff, while pull.ff=true is unable to.
Fix this by adding the --ff switch if pull.ff=true, and add a test to
catch future regressions.
Furthermore, clarify in the documentation that pull.ff overrides
merge.ff.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since efb779f (merge, pull: add '--(no-)log' command line option,
2008-04-06) git-pull supported the (--no-)log switch and would pass it
to git-merge.
96e9420 (merge: Make '--log' an integer option for number of shortlog
entries, 2010-09-08) implemented support for the --log=<n> switch, which
would explicitly set the number of shortlog entries. However, git-pull
does not recognize this option, and will instead pass it to git-fetch,
leading to "unknown option" errors.
Fix this by matching --log=* in addition to --log and --no-log.
Implement a test for this use case.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since 441ed41 ("git pull --tags": error out with a better message.,
2007-12-28), git pull --tags would print a different error message if
git-fetch did not return any merge candidates:
It doesn't make sense to pull all tags; you probably meant:
git fetch --tags
This is because at that time, git-fetch --tags would override any
configured refspecs, and thus there would be no merge candidates. The
error message was thus introduced to prevent confusion.
However, since c5a84e9 (fetch --tags: fetch tags *in addition to*
other stuff, 2013-10-30), git fetch --tags would fetch tags in addition
to any configured refspecs. Hence, if any no merge candidates situation
occurs, it is not because --tags was set. As such, this special error
message is now irrelevant.
To prevent confusion, remove this error message.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We had this in "git merge" manual for eternity:
'git merge' <msg> HEAD <commit>...
[This] syntax (<msg> `HEAD` <commit>...) is supported for
historical reasons. Do not use it from the command line or in
new scripts. It is the same as `git merge -m <msg> <commit>...`.
With the update to "git merge" to make it understand what is
recorded in FETCH_HEAD directly, including Octopus merge cases, we
now can rewrite the use of this syntax in "git pull" with a simple
"git merge FETCH_HEAD".
Also there are quite a few fallouts in the test scripts, and it
turns out that "git cvsimport" also uses this old syntax to record
a merge.
Judging from this result, I would not be surprised if dropping the
support of the old syntax broke scripts people have written and been
relying on for the past ten years. But at least we can start the
deprecation process by throwing a warning message when the syntax is
used.
With luck, we might be able to drop the support in a few years.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
'git commit -a' is rarely a good way to mark conflicts as resolved:
the user anyway has to go manually through the list of conflicts to
do the actual resolution, and it is usually better to use "git add"
on each files after doing the resolution.
On the other hand, using 'git commit -a' is potentially dangerous,
as it makes it very easy to mistakenly commit conflict markers
without noticing, and even worse, the user may have started a merge
while having local changes that do not overlap with it in the
working tree.
While we're there, synchronize the 'git pull' and 'git merge'
messages: the first was ending with '... and make a commit.', but
not the latter.
Eventually, git should detect that conflicts have been resolved in
the working tree and tailor these messages further. Not only "use
git commit -a" could be resurected, but "Fix them up in the work
tree" should be dropped when it happens.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is not C. The code would break under mksh when 'pull.ff' is set:
$ git pull
/usr/lib/git-core/git-pull[67]: break: can't break
Already up-to-date.
Signed-off-by: Jacek Konieczny <jajcus@jajcus.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The Git CodingGuidelines prefer the $(...) construct for command
substitution instead of using the backquotes `...`.
The backquoted form is the traditional method for command
substitution, and is supported by POSIX. However, all but the
simplest uses become complicated quickly. In particular, embedded
command substitutions and/or the use of double quotes require
careful escaping with the backslash character.
The patch was generated by:
for _f in $(find . -name "*.sh")
do
sed -i 's@`\(.*\)`@$(\1)@g' ${_f}
done
and then carefully proof-read.
Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git merge already allows us to sign commits, and git rebase has recently
learned how to do so as well. Teach git pull to parse the -S/--gpg-sign
option and pass this along to merge or rebase, as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 48059e4 (pull: use merge-base --fork-point when appropriate,
2013-12-08) incorrectly assumes that get_remote_merge_branch will either
yield a non-empty string or return an error, but there are circumstances
where it will yield an empty string.
The previous code then invoked git-rev-list with no arguments, which
results in an error suppressed by redirecting stderr to /dev/null. Now
we invoke git-merge-base with an empty branch name, which also results
in an error. Suppress this in the same way.
Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add a `pull.ff` configuration option that is analogous
to the `merge.ff` option.
This allows us to control the fast-forward behavior for
pull-initiated merges only.
Signed-off-by: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since commit d96855f (merge-base: teach "--fork-point" mode, 2013-10-23)
we can replace a shell loop in git-pull with a single call to
git-merge-base. So let's do so.
Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Previously, fetch's "--tags" option was considered equivalent to
specifying the refspec "refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*" on the command line;
in particular, it caused the remote.<name>.refspec configuration to be
ignored.
But it is not very useful to fetch tags without also fetching other
references, whereas it *is* quite useful to be able to fetch tags *in
addition to* other references. So change the semantics of this option
to do the latter.
If a user wants to fetch *only* tags, then it is still possible to
specifying an explicit refspec:
git fetch <remote> 'refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*'
Please note that the documentation prior to 1.8.0.3 was ambiguous
about this aspect of "fetch --tags" behavior. Commit
f0cb2f137c 2012-12-14 fetch --tags: clarify documentation
made the documentation match the old behavior. This commit changes
the documentation to match the new behavior.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
One of the first things git-pull.sh does is setting $curr_branch to
the target of HEAD and $curr_branch_short to the same but with the
leading "refs/heads/" removed. Simplify the code by using
$curr_branch_short instead of setting $curr_branch to the same
shortened value.
The only other use of $curr_branch in that function doesn't have to
be replaced with $curr_branch_short because it just checks if the
string is empty. That property is the same with or without the prefix
unless HEAD points to "refs/heads/" alone, which is invalid.
Noticed-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If a user is working on master, and has merged in their feature branch, but now
has to "git pull" because master moved, with pull.rebase their feature branch
will be flattened into master.
This is because "git pull" currently does not know about rebase's preserve
merges flag, which would avoid this behavior, as it would instead replay just
the merge commit of the feature branch onto the new master, and not replay each
individual commit in the feature branch.
Add a --rebase=preserve option, which will pass along --preserve-merges to
rebase.
Also add 'preserve' to the allowed values for the pull.rebase config setting.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since git-pull learned the --rebase option it has not just been about
merging changes from a remote repository (where "merge" is in the sense
of "git merge"). Change the description to use "integrate" instead of
"merge" in order to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The logic for pulling into an unborn branch was originally
designed to be used on a newly-initialized repository
(d09e79c, git-pull: allow pulling into an empty repository,
2006-11-16). It thus did not initially deal with
uncommitted changes in the unborn branch. The case of an
_unstaged_ untracked file was fixed by 4b3ffe5 (pull: do not
clobber untracked files on initial pull, 2011-03-25).
However, it still clobbered existing staged files, both when
the file exists in the merged commit (it will be
overwritten), and when it does not (it will be deleted).
We fix this by doing a two-way merge, where the "current"
side of the merge is an empty tree, and the "target" side is
HEAD (already updated to FETCH_HEAD at this point). This
amounts to claiming that all work in the index was done vs.
an empty tree, and thus all content of the index is
precious.
Note that this use of read-tree just gives us protection
against overwriting index and working tree changes. It will
not actually result in a 3-way merge conflict in the index.
This is fine, as this is a rare situation, and the conflict
would not be interesting anyway (it must, by definition, be
an add/add conflict with the whole content conflicting). And
it makes it simpler for the user to recover, as they have no
HEAD to "git reset" back to.
Reported-by: Stefan Schüßler <mail@stefanschuessler.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When commit d09e79c taught git to pull into an unborn
branch, it first updated the unborn branch to point at the
pulled commit, and then used read-tree to update the index
and working tree. That ordering made sense, since any
failure of the latter step would be due to filesystem
errors, and one could then recover with "git reset --hard".
Later, commit 4b3ffe5 added extra safety for existing files
in the working tree by asking read-tree to bail out when it
would overwrite such a file. This error mode is much less
"your pull failed due to random errors" and more like "we
reject this pull because it would lose data". In that case,
it makes sense not to update the HEAD ref, just as a regular
rejected merge would do.
This patch reverses the order of the update-ref and
read-tree calls, so that we do not touch the HEAD ref at all if a
merge is rejected. This also means that we would not update
HEAD in case of a transient filesystem error, but those are
presumably less rare (and one can still recover by repeating
the pull, or by accessing FETCH_HEAD directly).
While we're reorganizing the code, we can drop the "exit 1"
from the end of our command chain. We exit immediately
either way, and just calling exit without an argument will
use the exit code from the last command.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When --verify-signatures is specified on the command-line of git-merge
or git-pull, check whether the commits being merged have good gpg
signatures and abort the merge in case they do not. This allows e.g.
auto-deployment from untrusted repo hosts.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Götte <jaseg@physik-pool.tu-berlin.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git pull passed -q and -v only to git merge, but they can be useful for
git rebase as well, so pass them there, too.
In particular, using -q shuts up the "Already up-to-date." message.
Especially, a new test script runs the same "pull --rebase" twice to
make sure both cases are quiet, when it has something to fetch and
when it is already up to date.
Signed-off-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git pull --rebase does some clever tricks to find the base
for $upstream, but it forgets that we may not have any
branch at all. When this happens, git merge-base reports its
"usage" help in the middle of an otherwise successful
rebase operation, because git-merge is called with one too
few parameters.
Since we do not need the merge-base trick in the case of a
detached HEAD, detect this condition and bypass the clever
trick and the usage noise.
Signed-off-by: Phil Hord <hordp@cisco.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
The current message is too long and at too low a level for anybody
to understand it if they don't know about the configuration format
already.
The text about setting up a remote is superfluous and doesn't help
understand or recover from the error that has happened. Show the
usage more prominently and explain how to set up the tracking
information. If there is only one remote, that name is used instead
of the generic <remote>.
Also simplify the message we print on detached HEAD to remove
unnecessary information which is better left for the documentation.
Signed-off-by: Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@elego.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Ok, so now "git merge" defaults to editing when interactive - lovely. But
when testing that, I noticed that while you can say
git merge --[no-]edit ..branch..
that does not work with "git pull". You get a message like
error: unknown option `no-edit'
usage: git fetch [<options>] [<repository> [<refspec>...]]
or: git fetch [<options>] <group>
or: git fetch --multiple [<options>] [(<repository> | <group>)...]
or: git fetch --all [<options>]
-v, --verbose be more verbose
-q, --quiet be more quiet
--all fetch from all remotes
...
which is because that stupid shell script doesn't know about the new
flags, and just passes it to "git fetch" instead.
Now, I really wanted to just make "git pull" a built-in instead of that
nasty shell script, but I'm lazy. So here's the trivial updates to
git-pull.sh to at least teach it about -e/--edit/--no-edit.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Currently we either need to set branch.<name>.rebase for existing
branches if we'd like "git pull" to mean "git pull --rebase", or have
the forethought of setting "branch.autosetuprebase" before we create
the branch.
Introduce a "pull.rebase" option to globally configure "git pull" to
mean "git pull --rebase" for any branch.
This option will be considered at a lower priority than
branch.<name>.rebase, i.e. we could set pull.rebase=true and
branch.<name>.rebase=false and the latter configuration option would
win.
Reviewed-by: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Fernando Vezzosi <buccia@repnz.net>
Reviewed-by: Eric Herman <eric@freesa.org>
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Liked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
You can't currently run git-pull or git-rebase from outside
of the work tree, even with GIT_WORK_TREE set, due to an
overeager require_work_tree function. Commit e2eb527
documents this problem and provides the infrastructure for a
fix, but left it to later commits to audit and update
individual scripts.
Changing these scripts to use require_work_tree_exists is
easy to verify. We immediately call cd_to_toplevel, anyway.
Therefore no matter which function we use, the state
afterwards is one of:
1. We have a work tree, and we are at the top level.
2. We don't have a work tree, and we have died.
The only catch is that we must also make sure no code that
ran before the cd_to_toplevel assumed that we were already
in the working tree.
In this case, we will only have included shell libraries and
called set_reflog_action, neither of which care about the
current working directory at all.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A few scripted Porcelain implementations pretend as if the routine to show
their own help messages are triggered upon "git cmd --help", but a command
line parser of "git" will hijack such a request and shows the manpage for
the cmd subcommand.
Leaving the code to handle such input is simply misleading.
Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When executing "git pull" with no arguments, the reflog message was:
"pull : Fast-forward"
Signed-off-by: Ori Avtalion <ori@avtalion.name>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For a pull into an unborn branch, we do not use "git merge"
at all. Instead, we call read-tree directly. However, we
used the --reset parameter instead of "-m", which turns off
the safety features.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For a pull into an unborn branch, we do not use "git merge"
at all. Instead, we call read-tree directly. However, we
used the --reset parameter instead of "-m", which turns off
the safety features.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Until now the --recurse-submodules option could only be used to either
fetch all populated submodules recursively or to disable recursion
completely. As fetch and pull now by default just fetch those submodules
for which new commits have been fetched in the superproject, a command
line option to enforce that behavior is needed to be able to override
configuration settings.
Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that merge understands progress, we should pass it
along. While we're at it, pass along --no-progress, too.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Currently, "git pull --help-all" displays the fetch usage info.
Make it equivalent to "git pull -h" instead since "--help-all" is
documented in gitcli(7).
Do not try to sanitize the pull option parser (aka last hair puller).
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
'git rebase' without arguments is currently not supported. Make it
default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what 'git pull
[--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense that 'git rebase'
defaults to the same thing.
Defaulting to @{upstream} will make it possible to run e.g. 'git
rebase -i' without arguments, which is probably a quite common use
case. It also improves the scenario where you have multiple branches
that rebase against a remote-tracking branch, where you currently have
to choose between the extra network delay of 'git pull' or the
slightly awkward keys to enter 'git rebase @{u}'.
The error reporting when no upstream is configured for the current
branch or when no branch is checked out is reused from git-pull.sh. A
function is extracted into git-parse-remote.sh for this purpose.
Helped-by: Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
Helped-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This new boolean option can be used to override the default for "git
fetch" and "git pull", which is to not recurse into populated submodules
and fetch all new commits there too.
Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Until now you had to call "git submodule update" (without -N|--no-fetch
option) or something like "git submodule foreach git fetch" to fetch
new commits in populated submodules from their remote.
This could lead to "(commits not present)" messages in the output of
"git diff --submodule" (which is used by "git gui" and "gitk") after
fetching or pulling new commits in the superproject and is an obstacle for
implementing recursive checkout of submodules. Also "git submodule
update" cannot fetch changes when disconnected, so it was very easy to
forget to fetch the submodule changes before disconnecting only to
discover later that they are needed.
This patch adds the "--recurse-submodules" option to recursively fetch
each populated submodule from the url configured in the .git/config of the
submodule at the end of each "git fetch" or during "git pull" in the
superproject. The submodule paths are taken from the index.
The hidden option "--submodule-prefix" is added to "git fetch" to be able
to print out the full paths of nested submodules.
Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Although Git interally has the facility to differentiate between
porcelain and plubmbing commands and appropriately print errors,
several shell scripts invoke plubming commands triggering cryptic
plumbing errors to be displayed on a porcelain interface. This patch
replaces the "needs update" message in git-pull and git-rebase, when
`git update-index` is run, with a more friendly message.
Reported-by: Joshua Jensen <jjensen@workspacewhiz.com>
Reported-by: Thore Husfeldt <thore.husfeldt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Prior to c85c792 (pull --rebase: be cleverer with rebased upstream
branches, 2008-01-26), pull --rebase would run
git rebase $merge_head
which resulted in a call to
git format-patch ... --ignore-if-in-upstream $merge_head..$cur_branch
This resulted in patches from $merge_head..$cur_branch being applied, as
long as they did not already exist in $cur_branch..$merge_head.
Unfortunately, when upstream is rebased, $merge_head..$cur_branch also
refers to "old" commits that have already been rebased upstream, meaning
that many patches that were already fixed upstream would be reapplied.
This could result in many spurious conflicts, as well as reintroduce
patches that were intentionally dropped upstream.
So the algorithm was changed in c85c792 (pull --rebase: be cleverer with
rebased upstream branches, 2008-01-26) and d44e712 (pull: support rebased
upstream + fetch + pull --rebase, 2009-07-19). Defining $old_remote_ref to
be the most recent entry in the reflog for @{upstream} that is an ancestor
of $cur_branch, pull --rebase was changed to run
git rebase --onto $merge_head $old_remote_ref
which results in a call to
git format-patch ... --ignore-if-in-upstream $old_remote_ref..$cur_branch
The whole point of this change was to reduce the number of commits being
reapplied, by avoiding commits that upstream already has or had.
In the rebased upstream case, this change achieved that purpose. It is
worth noting, though, that since $old_remote_ref is always an ancestor of
$cur_branch (by its definition), format-patch will not know what upstream
is and thus will not be able to determine if any patches are already
upstream; they will all be reapplied.
In the non-rebased upstream case, this new form is usually the same as the
original code but in some cases $old_remote_ref can be an ancestor of
$(git merge-base $merge_head $cur_branch)
meaning that instead of avoiding reapplying commits that upstream already
has, it actually includes more such commits. Combined with the fact that
format-patch can no longer detect commits that are already upstream (since
it is no longer told what upstream is), results in lots of confusion for
users (e.g. "git is giving me lots of conflicts in stuff I didn't even
change since my last push.")
Cases where additional commits could be reapplied include forking from a
commit other than the tracking branch, or amending/rebasing after pushing.
Cases where the inability to detect upstreamed commits cause problems
include independent discovery of a fix and having your patches get
upstreamed by some alternative route (e.g. pulling your changes to a third
machine, pushing from there, and then going back to your original machine
and trying to pull --rebase).
Fix the non-rebased upstream case by ignoring $old_remote_ref whenever it
is contained in $(git merge-base $merge_head $cur_branch). This should
have no affect on the rebased upstream case.
Acked-by: Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Pull was never meant to take --dry-run at all. However, it
passes unknown arguments to git-fetch, which does do a
dry-run. Unfortunately, pull then attempts to merge whatever
cruft was in FETCH_HEAD (which the dry-run fetch will not
have written to).
Even though we never advertise --dry-run as something that
should work, it is still worth being defensive because:
1. Other commands (including fetch) take --dry-run, so a
user might try it.
2. Rather than simply producing an error, it actually
changes the repository in totally unexpected ways.
This patch makes "pull --dry-run" equivalent to "fetch
--dry-run".
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Getting the shortened branch name is as easy as using the shell's
parameter expansion.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <bebarino@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Alex Henrie