Pull Requests

Link: => taithambbelwpiz.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzY6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZG93bmxvYWRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MjM6IkdpdCBwdWxsIGFub3RoZXIgYnJhbmNoIjt9


First, assuming you will want to do it more than once, add her repository as a remote to your copy: git remote add rebekah Of course this assumes that she has gitosis or gitserve or something running and serving the repository. Prune has three states: True to remove remote-tracking branches which no longer exist on the remote, false: not to remove, and third state: use default behavior based on remote.

I have made some changes in newbranch and deployed them by switching the website to newbranch. To give some background, the repository stores a website.

In Git, how can I pull in changes from a local branch of another repository?

Is it possible to specify that I want both master and develop to be merged fast-forwarded at once. When I do git pull now I get something like this: remote: Counting objects: 92, done. So I have to do git checkout master. But I want to avoid that if possible, as it is error prone and not very efficient. Edit: ok let me rephrase that. I would just prefer a builtin solution if it exists : jjlin well if I can do it without checking out each branch that may help on the efficiency. It is error prone because the matrix of things that can go wrong and the effects it can have on the rest of the script is somewhat complex. I'm not saying it's infeasible to make it safe, but it would be a trade-off. So I'd prefer a builtin solution if it exists : — Jul 24 '13 at 7:39 You can set up an alias that uses git fetch with refspecs to fast-forward merge your branches with just one command. Set this up as an alias in your git pull another branch. This way, if you're on master git pull another branch develop, you detach your working copy from those branch pointers, allowing them to be moved Git won't allow you to move the branch references while your working copy has them checked out. So the sources in the alias are the branches from origin, while the destinations are the local repo versions of those branches. So if you were on master when you ran git sync, and everything succeeds, you'll leave detached head state and check out the newly updated master. It wouldn't make sense if it was your local develop branch. Also, the pointer for master can be moved if it's develop that is checked out, the point is that if it's master that is checked out, then you can't fast-forward master because that would affect your working copy, so that's why you detach the working copy from it first by using git checkout head. I like the concept though. At least not in version 1. However made me realize that at least I don't need to pull twice. It is also not optimal for use-cases with more than two branches, but it will get me what I need for now.

Work on the feature and make commits like you would any time you use Git. Pushing your changes to a remote repository How about the other way round? Git's paradigm for branches is that there is one working directory, one staging area, and multiple commit histories. When we commit often, we keep our commits small and share our work more frequently. He decides he wants to make a few changes before integrating it into the official project, and he and Mary have some back-and-forth via the pull request. This is one example of the many purposes this model can be used for. What do I do if I'm in the middle of a project on another branch and I need to make some minor change to the main branch master? Create a new-branch Use a separate branch for each feature or issue you work on. You've got a worktree you don't want to touch, so use another one. This is primarily because it provides users a clean branch to use to make minor changes without worrying about accidentally pushing out half-baked projects.