Timeline for answer to What is the difference between 'git pull' and 'git fetch'? by Contango
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2024 at 12:50 | history | edited | Amazon Dies In Darkness | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 18, 2023 at 10:52 | comment | added | Gerard van Helden | OK. Your comment "ignore local commits" seemed to imply something different, that's why I reacted. | |
| Apr 16, 2023 at 16:17 | comment | added | JustAMartin |
@GerardvanHelden And that is why I asked to mention merge in the diagram because it currently has pull only. I've seen pull confusing quite a few beginners because they tend to assume that pull is a magic command to refresh all the local copies of the remote branches and are surprised when they later switch to another branch and discover that it was not updated by the recent pull.
|
|
| Apr 15, 2023 at 11:46 | comment | added | Gerard van Helden | @JustAMartin again, your grasp of how it works is wrong. It's true for all pulls. What you just described is exactly what a merge does too. Keeping track of remote branches is merely administrative, it doesn't imply anything else, save for the defaults of the branch name to be merged (or pulled). That's why I always encourage people to explicitly fetch and merge instead because it will help you realize what is going on. Pull is more of an advanced move once you know what it does, and even then you would typically only want fast forwards. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 14:13 | comment | added | JustAMartin | @GerardvanHelden That's true if you pull into the same branch that corresponds to the origin branch. However, if you pull from the origin into a different local branch (not the one that corresponds to the origin), then that other inactive local branch will not be updated. Git does not care that you have another branch connected to the same remote branch, it only cares about the currently checked-out branch you are pulling into. | |
| Apr 13, 2023 at 13:27 | comment | added | Gerard van Helden | @JustAMartin That's just plain wrong. A pull doesn't ignore anything that a merge wouldn't. A pull is fetch + merge, nothing more, nothing less. | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 22:49 | history | edited | Mateen Ulhaq | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Shorten. (Insufficient interest?) Alt text.
|
| Mar 19, 2018 at 19:21 | history | edited | nmichaels | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Pointed link to original source, instead of another SO question with an unsourced copy of the image.
|
| May 23, 2017 at 11:55 | history | edited | URL Rewriter Bot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Nov 25, 2015 at 0:27 | comment | added | shikhanshu | A picture is worth a thousand words! Is the updated image with clone and merge data flow ready somewhere? Any other data flow besides what's already in the diagram? | |
| Oct 21, 2015 at 19:57 | comment | added | JustAMartin |
Yes, please add git merge - it should clearly show that merge called separately is NOT the same as calling pull because pull is merging from remote only and ignores your local commits in your local branch which is tracking the remote branch being pulled from.
|
|
| Sep 14, 2015 at 9:23 | history | edited | Contango | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 8, 2015 at 14:23 | comment | added | MEMark |
An updated image with git clone and git merge would be very helpful!
|
|
| Jul 21, 2015 at 17:52 | history | edited | Contango | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body; added 64 characters in body; added 33 characters in body; added 10 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2015 at 13:30 | history | answered | Contango | CC BY-SA 3.0 |