git-commit-vandalism/Documentation/git-pull.txt

256 lines
8.1 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

git-pull(1)
===========
NAME
----
git-pull - Fetch from and integrate with another repository or a local branch
SYNOPSIS
--------
[verse]
'git pull' [<options>] [<repository> [<refspec>...]]
DESCRIPTION
-----------
Incorporates changes from a remote repository into the current
branch. In its default mode, `git pull` is shorthand for
`git fetch` followed by `git merge FETCH_HEAD`.
More precisely, 'git pull' runs 'git fetch' with the given
parameters and calls 'git merge' to merge the retrieved branch
heads into the current branch.
With `--rebase`, it runs 'git rebase' instead of 'git merge'.
<repository> should be the name of a remote repository as
passed to linkgit:git-fetch[1]. <refspec> can name an
arbitrary remote ref (for example, the name of a tag) or even
a collection of refs with corresponding remote-tracking branches
(e.g., refs/heads/{asterisk}:refs/remotes/origin/{asterisk}),
but usually it is the name of a branch in the remote repository.
Default values for <repository> and <branch> are read from the
"remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch
as set by linkgit:git-branch[1] `--track`.
Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
"`master`":
------------
A---B---C master on origin
/
D---E---F---G master
^
origin/master in your repository
------------
Then "`git pull`" will fetch and replay the changes from the remote
`master` branch since it diverged from the local `master` (i.e., `E`)
until its current commit (`C`) on top of `master` and record the
result in a new commit along with the names of the two parent commits
and a log message from the user describing the changes.
------------
A---B---C origin/master
/ \
D---E---F---G---H master
------------
See linkgit:git-merge[1] for details, including how conflicts
are presented and handled.
In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
`git reset --merge`. *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you
in a state that may be hard to back out of in the case of a conflict.
If any of the remote changes overlap with local uncommitted changes,
the merge will be automatically canceled and the work tree untouched.
It is generally best to get any local changes in working order before
pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
OPTIONS
-------
-q::
--quiet::
This is passed to both underlying git-fetch to squelch reporting of
during transfer, and underlying git-merge to squelch output during
merging.
-v::
--verbose::
Pass --verbose to git-fetch and git-merge.
--[no-]recurse-submodules[=yes|on-demand|no]::
doc: --recurse-submodules mostly applies to active submodules The documentation refers to "initialized" or "populated" submodules, to explain which submodules are affected by '--recurse-submodules', but the real terminology here is 'active' submodules. Update the documentation accordingly. Some terminology: - Active is defined in gitsubmodules(7), it only involves the configuration variables 'submodule.active', 'submodule.<name>.active' and 'submodule.<name>.url'. The function submodule.c::is_submodule_active checks that a submodule is active. - Populated means that the submodule's working tree is present (and the gitfile correctly points to the submodule repository), i.e. either the superproject was cloned with ` --recurse-submodules`, or the user ran `git submodule update --init`, or `git submodule init [<path>]` and `git submodule update [<path>]` separately which populated the submodule working tree. This does not involve the 3 configuration variables above. - Initialized (at least in the context of the man pages involved in this patch) means both "populated" and "active" as defined above, i.e. what `git submodule update --init` does. The --recurse-submodules option mostly affects active submodules. An exception is `git fetch` where the option affects populated submodules. As a consequence, in `git pull --recurse-submodules` the fetch affects populated submodules, but the resulting working tree update only affects active submodules. In the documentation of `git-pull`, let's distinguish between the fetching part which affects populated submodules, and the updating of worktrees, which only affects active submodules. Signed-off-by: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> Helped-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-06 15:57:09 +02:00
This option controls if new commits of populated submodules should
be fetched, and if the working trees of active submodules should be
updated, too (see linkgit:git-fetch[1], linkgit:git-config[1] and
pull: optionally rebase submodules (remote submodule changes only) Teach pull to optionally update submodules when '--recurse-submodules' is provided. This will teach pull to run 'submodule update --rebase' when the '--recurse-submodules' and '--rebase' flags are given under specific circumstances. On a rebase workflow: ===================== 1. Both sides change the submodule ------------------------------ Let's assume the following history in a submodule: H---I---J---K---L local branch \ M---N---O---P remote branch and the following in the superproject (recorded submodule in parens): A(H)---B(I)---F(K)---G(L) local branch \ C(N)---D(N)---E(P) remote branch In an ideal world this would rebase the submodule and rewrite the submodule pointers that the superproject points at such that the superproject looks like A(H)---B(I) F(K')---G(L') rebased branch \ / C(N)---D(N)---E(P) remote branch and the submodule as: J---K---L (old dangeling tip) / H---I J'---K'---L' rebased branch \ / M---N---O---P remote branch And if a conflict arises in the submodule the superproject rebase would stop at that commit at which the submodule conflict occurs. Currently a "pull --rebase" in the superproject produces a merge conflict as the submodule pointer changes are conflicting and cannot be resolved. 2. Local submodule changes only ----------------------- Assuming histories as above, except that the remote branch would not contain submodule changes, then a result as A(H)---B(I) F(K)---G(L) rebased branch \ / C(I)---D(I)---E(I) remote branch is desire-able. This is what currently happens in rebase. If the recursive flag is given, the ideal git would produce a superproject as: A(H)---B(I) F(K')---G(L') rebased branch (incl. sub rebase!) \ / C(I)---D(I)---E(I) remote branch and the submodule as: J---K---L (old dangeling tip) / H---I J'---K'---L' locally rebased branch \ / M---N---O---P advanced branch This patch doesn't address this issue, however a test is added that this fails up front. 3. Remote submodule changes only ---------------------- Assuming histories as in (1) except that the local superproject branch would not have touched the submodule the rebase already works out in the superproject with no conflicts: A(H)---B(I) F(P)---G(P) rebased branch (no sub changes) \ / C(N)---D(N)---E(P) remote branch The recurse flag as presented in this patch would additionally update the submodule as: H---I J'---K'---L' rebased branch \ / M---N---O---P remote branch As neither J, K, L nor J', K', L' are referred to from the superproject, no rewriting of the superproject commits is required. Conclusion for 'pull --rebase --recursive' ----------------------------------------- If there are no local superproject changes it is sufficient to call "submodule update --rebase" as this produces the desired results. In case of conflicts, the behavior is the same as in 'submodule update --recursive' which is assumed to be sane. This patch implements (3) only. On a merge workflow: ==================== We'll start off with the same underlying DAG as in (1) in the rebase workflow. So in an ideal world a 'pull --merge --recursive' would produce this: H---I---J---K---L----X \ / M---N---O---P with X as the new merge-commit in the submodule and the superproject as: A(H)---B(I)---F(K)---G(L)---Y(X) \ / C(N)---D(N)---E(P) However modifying the submodules on the fly is not supported in git-merge such that Y(X) is not easy to produce in a single patch. In fact git-merge doesn't know about submodules at all. However when at least one side does not contain commits touching the submodule at all, then we do not need to perform the merge for the submodule but a fast-forward can be done via checking out either L or P in the submodule. This strategy is implemented in 68d03e4a6e (Implement automatic fast-forward merge for submodules, 2010-07-07) already, so to align with the rebase behavior we need to also update the worktree of the submodule. Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-06-23 21:13:02 +02:00
linkgit:gitmodules[5]).
+
If the checkout is done via rebase, local submodule commits are rebased as well.
+
If the update is done via merge, the submodule conflicts are resolved and checked out.
Options related to merging
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:git-pull: 1
include::merge-options.txt[]
-r::
--rebase[=false|true|merges|preserve|interactive]::
When true, rebase the current branch on top of the upstream
branch after fetching. If there is a remote-tracking branch
corresponding to the upstream branch and the upstream branch
was rebased since last fetched, the rebase uses that information
to avoid rebasing non-local changes.
+
When set to `merges`, rebase using `git rebase --rebase-merges` so that
the local merge commits are included in the rebase (see
linkgit:git-rebase[1] for details).
+
When set to `preserve` (deprecated in favor of `merges`), rebase with the
`--preserve-merges` option passed to `git rebase` so that locally created
merge commits will not be flattened.
+
When false, merge the current branch into the upstream branch.
+
When `interactive`, enable the interactive mode of rebase.
+
See `pull.rebase`, `branch.<name>.rebase` and `branch.autoSetupRebase` in
linkgit:git-config[1] if you want to make `git pull` always use
docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc 8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the documentation could be built on either version. It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want inline literals on their own merits, which are: 1. The source is much easier to read when the literal contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead of `master{tilde}1`. 2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of quoting. This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up, or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the output). Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to making the source more readable, this patch fixes several formatting bugs: - HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B") - some code examples used the right-arrow character instead of '->' because they failed to quote - api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting HTML contained a bogus snippet like: <tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt> which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole sections of the page. - git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes) - mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for author@example.com - the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}". - using "prime" notation like: commit `C` and its replacement `C'` confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant to be inside matched quotes - asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our asterisks. In particular, `credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*` properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but literally passed through the backslash in the second case. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-04-26 10:51:57 +02:00
`--rebase` instead of merging.
+
[NOTE]
This is a potentially _dangerous_ mode of operation.
It rewrites history, which does not bode well when you
published that history already. Do *not* use this option
unless you have read linkgit:git-rebase[1] carefully.
--no-rebase::
Override earlier --rebase.
Options related to fetching
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include::fetch-options.txt[]
include::pull-fetch-param.txt[]
include::urls-remotes.txt[]
include::merge-strategies.txt[]
DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR
-----------------
Often people use `git pull` without giving any parameter.
Traditionally, this has been equivalent to saying `git pull
origin`. However, when configuration `branch.<name>.remote` is
present while on branch `<name>`, that value is used instead of
`origin`.
In order to determine what URL to use to fetch from, the value
of the configuration `remote.<origin>.url` is consulted
and if there is not any such variable, the value on the `URL:` line
in `$GIT_DIR/remotes/<origin>` is used.
In order to determine what remote branches to fetch (and
optionally store in the remote-tracking branches) when the command is
run without any refspec parameters on the command line, values
of the configuration variable `remote.<origin>.fetch` are
consulted, and if there aren't any, `$GIT_DIR/remotes/<origin>`
is consulted and its `Pull:` lines are used.
In addition to the refspec formats described in the OPTIONS
section, you can have a globbing refspec that looks like this:
------------
refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
------------
A globbing refspec must have a non-empty RHS (i.e. must store
what were fetched in remote-tracking branches), and its LHS and RHS
must end with `/*`. The above specifies that all remote
branches are tracked using remote-tracking branches in
`refs/remotes/origin/` hierarchy under the same name.
The rule to determine which remote branch to merge after
fetching is a bit involved, in order not to break backward
compatibility.
If explicit refspecs were given on the command
line of `git pull`, they are all merged.
When no refspec was given on the command line, then `git pull`
uses the refspec from the configuration or
`$GIT_DIR/remotes/<origin>`. In such cases, the following
rules apply:
. If `branch.<name>.merge` configuration for the current
branch `<name>` exists, that is the name of the branch at the
remote site that is merged.
. If the refspec is a globbing one, nothing is merged.
. Otherwise the remote branch of the first refspec is merged.
EXAMPLES
--------
* Update the remote-tracking branches for the repository
you cloned from, then merge one of them into your
current branch:
+
------------------------------------------------
$ git pull
$ git pull origin
------------------------------------------------
+
Normally the branch merged in is the HEAD of the remote repository,
but the choice is determined by the branch.<name>.remote and
branch.<name>.merge options; see linkgit:git-config[1] for details.
* Merge into the current branch the remote branch `next`:
+
------------------------------------------------
$ git pull origin next
------------------------------------------------
+
This leaves a copy of `next` temporarily in FETCH_HEAD, and
updates the remote-tracking branch `origin/next`.
The same can be done by invoking fetch and merge:
+
------------------------------------------------
$ git fetch origin
$ git merge origin/next
------------------------------------------------
If you tried a pull which resulted in complex conflicts and
would want to start over, you can recover with 'git reset'.
include::transfer-data-leaks.txt[]
BUGS
----
Using --recurse-submodules can only fetch new commits in already checked
out submodules right now. When e.g. upstream added a new submodule in the
just fetched commits of the superproject the submodule itself cannot be
fetched, making it impossible to check out that submodule later without
having to do a fetch again. This is expected to be fixed in a future Git
version.
SEE ALSO
--------
linkgit:git-fetch[1], linkgit:git-merge[1], linkgit:git-config[1]
GIT
---
Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite