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>
Note that in the documentation for git-pull, documentation for the
--progress option is displayed under the "Options related to fetching"
subtitle via fetch-options.txt.
Also, update the documentation of the -q/--quiet option for git-pull to
mention its effect on progress reporting during fetching.
Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
14e5d40 (pull: Fix parsing of -X<option>, 2010-01-17) forgot that
merge_name needs to stay as a single non-interpolated string.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As -X parameter can contain arbitrary $IFS characters, we need to
properly quote it from the shell while forming the command line.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This needs the usual sq then eval trick to allow IFS characters
in the option.
Signed-off-by: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Various commands refuse to run in the presence of conflicts (commit,
merge, pull, cherry-pick/revert). They all used to provide rough, and
inconsistant error messages.
A new variable advice.resolveconflict is introduced, and allows more
verbose messages, pointing the user to the appropriate solution.
For commit, the error message used to look like this:
$ git commit
foo.txt: needs merge
foo.txt: unmerged (c34a92682e0394bc0d6f4d4a67a8e2d32395c169)
foo.txt: unmerged (3afcd75de8de0bb5076942fcb17446be50451030)
foo.txt: unmerged (c9785d77b76dfe4fb038bf927ee518f6ae45ede4)
error: Error building trees
The "need merge" line is given by refresh_cache. We add the IN_PORCELAIN
option to make the output more consistant with the other porcelain
commands, and catch the error in return, to stop with a clean error
message. The next lines were displayed by a call to cache_tree_update(),
which is not reached anymore if we noticed the conflict.
The new output looks like:
U foo.txt
fatal: 'commit' is not possible because you have unmerged files.
Please, fix them up in the work tree, and then use 'git add/rm <file>' as
appropriate to mark resolution and make a commit, or use 'git commit -a'.
Pull is slightly modified to abort immediately if $GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD
exists instead of waiting for merge to complain.
The behavior of merge and the test-case are slightly modified to reflect
the usual flow: start with conflicts, fix them, and afterwards get rid of
MERGE_HEAD, with different error messages at each stage.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This reverts commit c0ecb07048 "git-pull.sh:
Fix call to git-merge for new command format" and
commit b81e00a965 "git-merge: a deprecation
notice of the ancient command line syntax".
They caused a "git pull" (without any arguments, and without any local
commits---only to update to the other side) to warn that commit log
message is ignored because the merge resulted in a fast-forward.
Another possible solution is to add an extra option to "git merge" so that
"git pull" can tell it that the message given is not coming from the end
user (the canned message is passed just in case the merge resulted in a
non-ff and caused commit), but I think it is easier _not_ to deprecate the
old syntax.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When pull --rebase fails because it cannot find what branch to
merge against, the error message implies we are trying to merge.
Say "rebase against" instead of "merge with" to avoid confusion.
The configuration suggested to remedy the situation uses a
confusing syntax, with variables specified in the dotted form
accepted by 'git config' but separated from their values by the
'=' delimiter used by config files. Since the user will have to
edit this output anyway, it is more helpful to provide a config
file snippet to paste into an editor and modify.
Signed-off-by: Jan Krüger <jk@jk.gs>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now "git merge <msg> HEAD" is officially deprecated, we should
clean our own use as well.
Signed-off-by: Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For convenience in scripts and aliases, add the option
--ff-only to only allow fast-forwards (and up-to-date,
despite the name).
Disallow combining --ff-only and --no-ff, since they
flatly contradict each other.
Allow all other options to be combined with --ff-only
(i.e. do not add any code to handle them specially),
including the following options:
* --strategy (one or more): As long as the chosen merge
strategy results in up-to-date or fast-forward, the
command will succeed.
* --squash: I cannot imagine why anyone would want to
squash commits only if fast-forward is possible, but I
also see no reason why it should not be allowed.
* --message: The message will always be ignored, but I see
no need to explicitly disallow providing a redundant message.
Acknowledgements: I did look at Yuval Kogman's earlier
patch (107768 in gmane), mainly as shortcut to find my
way in the code, but I did not copy anything directly.
Signed-off-by: Björn Gustavsson <bgustavsson@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are several reasons a git-pull invocation might not
have anything marked for merge:
1. We're not on a branch, so there is no branch
configuration.
2. We're on a branch, but there is no configuration for
this branch.
3. We fetched from the configured remote, but the
configured branch to merge didn't get fetched (either
it doesn't exist, or wasn't part of the fetch refspec).
4. We fetched from the non-default remote, but didn't
specify a branch to merge. We can't use the configured
one because it applies to the default remote.
5. We fetched from a specified remote, and a refspec was
given, but it ended up not fetching anything (this is
actually hard to do; if the refspec points to a remote
branch and it doesn't exist, then fetch will fail and
we never make it to this code path. But if you provide
a wildcard refspec like
refs/bogus/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
then you can see this failure).
We have handled (1) and (2) for some time. Recently, commit
a6dbf88 added code to handle case (3).
This patch handles cases (4) and (5), which previously just
fell under other cases, producing a confusing message.
While we're at it, let's rewrap the text for case (3), which
looks terribly ugly as it is.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Back when a74b170 (git-pull: disallow implicit merging to detached HEAD,
2007-01-15) added this check, $? referred to the error status of reading
HEAD as a symbolic-ref; but cd67e4d (Teach 'git pull' about --rebase,
2007-11-28) moved the command away from where the check is, and nobody
noticed the breakage. Ever since, $? has always been 0 (tr at the end of
the pipe to find merge_head never fails) and other case arms were never
reached.
These days, error_on_no_merge_candidates function is prepared to handle a
detached HEAD case, which was what the code this patch removes used to
handle.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the remote branch we asked for merging did not exist in the set of
fetched refs, we unconditionally hinted that it was because of lack of
configuration. It is not necessarily so, and risks sending users for a
wild goose chase.
Make sure to check if that is indeed the case before telling a wild guess
to the user.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
brian m. carlson