Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-28 Thread Felipe Contreras
Philippe Vaucher wrote: > Sorry if I missed a thread where it was already decided not to include > it. > > Felipe, please don't use this to start any non-constructive behavior > (rant on who is right/wrong, "my patches are not accepted", etc). I never sent those patches. I gave up on the Git proj

Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-28 Thread Philippe Vaucher
> Felipe Contreras wrote: >> == git update == >> >> Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This >> command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it >> could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse. > > And here it is: > > https:

RE: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-10 Thread Felipe Contreras
Felipe Contreras wrote: > == git update == > > Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This > command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it > could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing so in reverse. And here it is: https://github.com

Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-07 Thread Ping Yin
Ping Yin On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Hi, > > == git update == > > Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This > command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it > could be configured to do merges instead, and when doing

Re: Summary of the problems with git pull

2014-05-06 Thread Damien Robert
Felipe Contreras wrote in message <5366db742d494_18f9e4b308aa@nysa.notmuch>: > == git update == > > Another proposed solution is to have a new command: `git update`. This > command would be similar to `git pull --ff-only` by default, but it > could be configured to do merges instead, and when doi