Re: Stupid git!

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: acm@muc.de,  sven.axelsson@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:28:06 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> >> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:29:37 +0200
> >> Cc: Sven Axelsson <sven.axelsson@gmail.com>, emacs <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> >> 
> >> Pulling is not a really good thing to do if you have uncommitted work.
> >
> > I'm doing it all the time, and have yet to report a single problem.
> >
> > It's the simplest way of minimizing the probability of spurious
> > merges, when someone else pushes before you.
> 
> Nope.  The simplest way is to git fetch rather than git pull.

How is using 2 commands instead of one, and learning an additional
command, simpler?

> > If you commit then pull, and someone else pushed in between, you will
> > get that "merged branch master" thing.
> 
> It that's not what you want, git pull -r will rebase just fine.

We've concluded long ago that "pull --rebase" is trouble when you
merge from and to feature branches, so I'm trying to stay away of that
path.