The "--preserve-merges" option of "git rebase" has been removed.
* js/retire-preserve-merges:
sequencer: restrict scope of a formerly public function
rebase: remove a no-longer-used function
rebase: stop mentioning the -p option in comments
rebase: remove obsolete code comment
rebase: drop the internal `rebase--interactive` command
git-svn: drop support for `--preserve-merges`
rebase: drop support for `--preserve-merges`
pull: remove support for `--rebase=preserve`
tests: stop testing `git rebase --preserve-merges`
remote: warn about unhandled branch.<name>.rebase values
t5520: do not use `pull.rebase=preserve`
In preparation for `git-rebase--preserve-merges.sh` entering its after
life, we remove this (deprecated) option that would still rely on it.
To help users transition who still did not receive the memo about the
deprecation, we offer a helpful error message instead of throwing our
hands in the air and saying that we don't know that option, never heard
of it.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git pull" had various corner cases that were not well thought out
around its --rebase backend, e.g. "git pull --ff-only" did not stop
but went ahead and rebased when the history on other side is not a
descendant of our history. The series tries to fix them up.
* en/pull-conflicting-options:
pull: fix handling of multiple heads
pull: update docs & code for option compatibility with rebasing
pull: abort by default when fast-forwarding is not possible
pull: make --rebase and --no-rebase override pull.ff=only
pull: since --ff-only overrides, handle it first
pull: abort if --ff-only is given and fast-forwarding is impossible
t7601: add tests of interactions with multiple merge heads and config
t7601: test interaction of merge/rebase/fast-forward flags and options
git-pull.txt includes merge-options.txt, which is written assuming
merges will happen. git-pull has allowed rebases for many years; update
the documentation to reflect that.
While at it, pass any `--signoff` flag through to the rebase backend too
so that we don't have to document it as merge-specific. Rebase has
supported the --signoff flag for years now as well.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We have for some time shown a long warning when the user does not
specify how to reconcile divergent branches with git pull. Make it an
error now.
Initial-patch-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git pull --rebase=false" means we merge their history into ours, but
it has been described the other way around.
Cc: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
[jc: updated the log message]
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Documentation updates around the "--recurse-submodules" option.
* dr/doc-recurse-submodules:
doc: --recurse-submodules mostly applies to active submodules
doc: be more precise on (fetch|push).recurseSubmodules
doc: explain how to deactivate submodule.recurse completely
doc: document --recurse-submodules for reset and restore
doc: list all commands affected by submodule.recurse
Before, `--autostash` only worked with `git pull --rebase`. However, in
the last patch, merge learned `--autostash` as well so there's no reason
why we should have this restriction anymore. Teach pull to pass
`--autostash` to merge, just like it did for rebase.
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
The default value also depends on the value of submodule.recurse.
Use this opportunity to correct some grammar mistakes in
Documentation/config/fetch.txt signaled by Robert P. J. Day.
Also mention `fetch.recurseSubmodules` in fetch-options.txt. In
git-push.txt, `push.recurseSubmodules` is implicitly mentioned (by
explaining how to disable it), so no need to add it there.
Lastly add a link to `git-fetch` in `git-pull.txt` to explain the
meaning of `--recurse-submodules` there.
Signed-off-by: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since f269048754 (fetch: opportunistically update tracking refs,
2013-05-11), the underlying `git fetch` in `git pull <remote> <branch>`
updates the configured remote-tracking branch for <branch>.
However, an example in the 'Examples' section of the `git pull`
documentation still states that this is not the case.
Correct the description of this example.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"Can not" suggests one has the option to not do something, whereas
"cannot" more strongly suggests something is disallowed or impossible.
Noticed "can not", mistakenly used instead of "cannot" in git help
glossary, then ran git grep 'can not' and found many other instances.
Only files in the Documentation folder were modified.
'Can not' also occurs in some source code comments and some test
assertion messages, and there is an error message and translation "can
not move directory into itself" which I may fix and submit separately
from the documentation change.
Also noticed and fixed "is does" in git help fetch, but there are no
other occurrences of that typo according to git grep.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rushakoff <mark.rushakoff@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As of Git v2.22.0, the `--preserve-merges` backend of `git rebase` will
be officially deprecated in favor of the `--rebase-merges` backend.
Consequently, `git pull --rebase=preserve` will also be deprected. State
this explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The standard for command documentation synopses appears to be:
[...] means optional
<...> means replaceable
[<...>] means both optional and replaceable
So fix a number of doc pages that use incorrect variations of the
above.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Similar to the `preserve` mode simply passing the `--preserve-merges`
option to the `rebase` command, the `merges` mode simply passes the
`--rebase-merges` option.
This will allow users to conveniently rebase non-trivial commit
topologies when pulling new commits, without flattening them.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git pull --rebase --recurse-submodules" learns to rebase the
branch in the submodules to an updated base.
* sb/pull-rebase-submodule:
builtin/fetch cleanup: always set default value for submodule recursing
pull: optionally rebase submodules (remote submodule changes only)
builtin/fetch: parse recurse-submodules-default at default options parsing
builtin/fetch: factor submodule recurse parsing out to submodule config
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>
Most of the time, a 'stash entry' is called a 'stash'. Lets try to make
this more consistent and use 'stash entry' instead.
Signed-off-by: Liam Beguin <liambeguin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When compiling the documentation, asciidoc thinks a backtick surrounded
by whitespace shouldn't be interpreted as marking the start or end of a
literal. In most cases, that's useful behaviour, but in the git-pull
documentation it means asciidoc is failing to correctly detect which
text should be monospaced and which shouldn't.
To avoid this, remove the extraneous spaces from the text to be
monospaced. It would also be possible to fix the formatting by
switching to asciidoc's ++ monospace format markers and still have the
space characters included in the monospace text, but the spaces aren't
necessary and not having them keeps the markup simpler.
Also include a minor grammar fix suggested by Jeff while we're changing
these lines.
Signed-off-by: Adam Dinwoodie <adam@dinwoodie.org>
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "SECURITY" section of the gitnamespaces(7) man page described two
ways for a client to steal data from a server that wasn't intended to be
shared. Similar attacks can be performed by a server on a client, so
adapt the section to cover both directions and add it to the
git-fetch(1), git-pull(1), and git-push(1) man pages. Also add
references to this section from the documentation of server
configuration options that attempt to control data leakage but may not
be fully effective.
Signed-off-by: Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If rebase.autoStash configuration variable is set, there is no way to
override it for "git pull --rebase" from the command line.
Teach "git pull --rebase" the --[no-]autostash command line flag which
overrides the current value of rebase.autoStash, if set. As "git rebase"
understands the --[no-]autostash option, it's just a matter of passing
the option to underlying "git rebase" when "git pull --rebase" is called.
Helped-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A couple of years ago, I found the need to collaborate on topic
branches that were rebased all the time, and I really needed to see
what I was rebasing when pulling, so I introduced an
interactively-rebasing pull.
The way builtin pull works, this change also supports the value
'interactive' for the 'branch.<name>.rebase' config variable, which
is a neat thing because users can now configure given branches for
interactively-rebasing pulls without having to type out the complete
`--rebase=interactive` option every time they pull.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While parsing the command-line arguments, git-pull stops parsing at the
first unrecognized option, assuming that any subsequent options are for
git-fetch, and can thus be kept in the shell's positional parameters
list, so that it can be passed to git-fetch via the expansion of "$@".
However, certain functions in git-pull assume that the positional
parameters do not contain any options:
* error_on_no_merge_candidates() uses the number of positional
parameters to determine which error message to print out, and will
thus print the wrong message if git-fetch's options are passed in as
well.
* the call to get_remote_merge_branch() assumes that the positional
parameters only contains the optional repo and refspecs, and will
thus silently fail if git-fetch's options are passed in as well.
* --dry-run is a valid git-fetch option, but if provided after any
git-fetch options, it is not recognized by git-pull and thus git-pull
will continue to run the merge or rebase.
Fix these bugs by teaching git-pull to parse git-fetch's options as
well. Add tests to prevent regressions.
This removes the limitation where git-fetch's options have to come after
git-merge's and git-rebase's options on the command line. Update the
documentation to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "also" sounds as if "preserve" does a rebase as an additional
step that "true" would not do, but that is not the case. Clarify
this by omitting "also", and rewording the sentence a bit.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This should improve readability. Compare "thislongname" and
"thisLongName". The following keys are left in unchanged. We can
decide what to do with them later.
- am.keepcr
- core.autocrlf .safecrlf .trustctime
- diff.dirstat .noprefix
- gitcvs.usecrlfattr
- gui.blamehistoryctx .trustmtime
- pull.twohead
- receive.autogc
- sendemail.signedoffbycc .smtpsslcertpath .suppresscc
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
10eb64f5 (git pull manpage: don't include -n from fetch-options.txt,
2008-01-25) introduced a way to exclude some parts of included
source when building git-pull documentation, and later 409b8d82
(Documentation/git-pull: put verbosity options before merge/fetch
ones, 2010-02-24) attempted to use the mechanism to exclude some
parts of merge-options.txt when used from git-pull.txt.
However, the latter did not have an intended effect, because the
macro "git-pull" used to decide if the source is included in
git-pull documentation were defined a bit too late.
Define the macro before it is used to fix this.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The second illustration that shows the history after "git pull"
spelled the remote-tracking branch with "remotes/" prefix, which
is not necessary. Drop it.
To match the assumption that a remote-tracking branch is used to
keep track of the advancement of the master at the origin, update
the first illustration that shows the history before "git pull"
to show the distinction between the master currently at origin and
the stale origin/master remote-tracking branch.
Noticed-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Max Horn <max@quendi.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>
Letting the "--rebase" option squat on the short-and-sweet single
letter option "-r" was an unintended accident and was not even
documented, but the short option seems to be already used in the
wild. Let's document it so that other options that begin with "r"
would not be tempted to steal it.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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>
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>
The SYNOPSIS sections of most commands that span several lines already
use [verse] to retain line breaks. Most commands that don't span
several lines seem not to use [verse]. In the HTML output, [verse]
does not only preserve line breaks, but also makes the section
indented, which causes a slight inconsistency between commands that
use [verse] and those that don't. Use [verse] in all SYNOPSIS sections
for consistency.
Also remove the blank lines from git-fetch.txt and git-rebase.txt to
align with the other man pages. In the case of git-rebase.txt, which
already uses [verse], the blank line makes the [verse] not apply to
the last line, so removing the blank line also makes the formatting
within the document more consistent.
While at it, add single quotes to 'git cvsimport' for consistency with
other commands.
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* jl/submodule-fetch-on-demand:
fetch/pull: Describe --recurse-submodule restrictions in the BUGS section
submodule update: Don't fetch when the submodule commit is already present
fetch/pull: Don't recurse into a submodule when commits are already present
Submodules: Add 'on-demand' value for the 'fetchRecurseSubmodule' option
config: teach the fetch.recurseSubmodules option the 'on-demand' value
fetch/pull: Add the 'on-demand' value to the --recurse-submodules option
fetch/pull: recurse into submodules when necessary
Conflicts:
builtin/fetch.c
submodule.c
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
Using the --recurse-submodules option with fetch and pull might not always
fetch all the submodule commits the user expects, as this will only work
when the submodule is already checked out. Document that and warn that
this is expected to change in the future.
Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
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>
In commits be254a0ea9 and 7dce19d374 the handling of the new fetch options
"--[no-]recurse-submodules" had been added to git-pull.sh. But they were
not documented as the pull options they now are, so let's fix that.
Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* maint:
Git 1.7.3.3
CodingGuidelines: mention whitespace preferences for shell scripts
Documentation: do not misinterpret pull refspec as bold text
Conflicts:
Documentation/git-pull.txt
RelNotes
