Community
Participate
Working Groups
Just tried the remote/fetch/merge sequence (bug 339722) for my real work. Very nice! Maybe I'm dumber than the average git user (that's almost certain), but I had to go back to my git guide to realize that "fetch + merge = pull." Should we add a pull command or just rely on some tooltip polish/help stuff and bug 343542 to better guide the user?
FWIW, adding an API for that on the server side shouldn't be a big deal, but even at it's current shape the API can be used to pull changes. Just call fetch and merge in a chain. The later could be made optional by adding a check box for it: [Fetch] [ ] merge changes when done
I think that before we add the Pull action, we should have a way to see what the incoming changes are. Recently we need to accept incoming changes without any idea of what to expect.
(In reply to comment #2) > I think that before we add the Pull action, we should have a way to see what > the incoming changes are. Actually, this is the difference between pulling and doing fetch+merge. If you would like to see the incoming changes you should fetch them first and merge if you're fine with them. Doing a pull, imo, means you're not interested in reviewing the changes, you just want to sync with a remote in a convenient way.
I think the best place for the action is the repos page [1] and the clone page (not implemented yet) [2]. IMO it's more handy then the Fetch action, so if I had to choose between these two, in order to place one under the More menu, I would pick Pull. [1] http://zaza.github.com/mockups/git-repositories.html [2] http://zaza.github.com/mockups/git-clone.html
(In reply to comment #4) > IMO it's more handy then the Fetch action, so if I > had to choose between these two, in order to place one under the More menu, I > would pick Pull. I agree. I think more developers use Pull, than Fetch+Merge.
Fixed with 84d9e4570eb2f0ceba5f2b5154c8daa13bc84d21. Added the action next to a remote on the Git Repositories page.
I added a request for "Git Pull" icon to bug 364399. I think we need to ask the icon team to review or prepare this icon anyway.
