git/git-pull.sh, branch gitk-resize-error

pull: remove redirection to git-pull.sh

2015-06-18T20:18:59Z

At the beginning of the rewrite of git-pull.sh to C, we introduced a redirection to git-pull.sh if the environment variable _GIT_USE_BUILTIN_PULL was not defined in order to not break test scripts that relied on a functional git-pull. Now that all of git-pull's functionality has been re-implemented in builtin/pull.c, remove this redirection, and retire the old git-pull.sh into contrib/examples/. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'pt/pull-ff-vs-merge-ff'

2015-05-26T20:24:44Z

The pull.ff configuration was supposed to override the merge.ff configuration, but it didn't. * pt/pull-ff-vs-merge-ff: pull: parse pull.ff as a bool or string pull: make pull.ff=true override merge.ff

Merge branch 'pt/pull-log-n'

2015-05-26T20:24:43Z

"git pull --log" and "git pull --no-log" worked as expected, but "git pull --log=20" did not. * pt/pull-log-n: pull: handle --log=

Merge branch 'pt/pull-tags-error-diag'

2015-05-22T19:41:56Z

There was a dead code that used to handle "git pull --tags" and show special-cased error message, which was made irrelevant when the semantics of the option changed back in Git 1.9 days. * pt/pull-tags-error-diag: pull: remove --tags error in no merge candidates case

Merge branch 'jc/merge'

2015-05-19T20:17:57Z

"git merge FETCH_HEAD" learned that the previous "git fetch" could be to create an Octopus merge, i.e. recording multiple branches that are not marked as "not-for-merge"; this allows us to lose an old style invocation "git merge HEAD $commits..." in the implementation of "git pull" script; the old style syntax can now be deprecated. * jc/merge: merge: deprecate 'git merge HEAD ' syntax merge: handle FETCH_HEAD internally merge: decide if we auto-generate the message early in collect_parents() merge: make collect_parents() auto-generate the merge message merge: extract prepare_merge_message() logic out merge: narrow scope of merge_names merge: split reduce_parents() out of collect_parents() merge: clarify collect_parents() logic merge: small leakfix and code simplification merge: do not check argc to determine number of remote heads merge: clarify "pulling into void" special case t5520: test pulling an octopus into an unborn branch t5520: style fixes merge: simplify code flow merge: test the top-level merge driver

pull: parse pull.ff as a bool or string

2015-05-18T18:22:38Z

Since b814da8 (pull: add pull.ff configuration, 2014-01-15) git-pull supported setting --(no-)ff via the pull.ff configuration value. However, as it only matches the string values of "true" and "false", it does not support other boolean aliases such as "on", "off", "1", "0". This is inconsistent with the merge.ff setting, which supports these aliases. Fix this by using the bool_or_string_config function to retrieve the value of pull.ff. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

pull: make pull.ff=true override merge.ff

2015-05-18T18:22:27Z

Since b814da8 (pull: add pull.ff configuration, 2014-01-15), running git-pull with the configuration pull.ff=false or pull.ff=only is equivalent to passing --no-ff and --ff-only to git-merge. However, if pull.ff=true, no switch is passed to git-merge. This leads to the confusing behavior where pull.ff=false or pull.ff=only is able to override merge.ff, while pull.ff=true is unable to. Fix this by adding the --ff switch if pull.ff=true, and add a test to catch future regressions. Furthermore, clarify in the documentation that pull.ff overrides merge.ff. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

pull: handle --log=

2015-05-18T18:19:36Z

Since efb779f (merge, pull: add '--(no-)log' command line option, 2008-04-06) git-pull supported the (--no-)log switch and would pass it to git-merge. 96e9420 (merge: Make '--log' an integer option for number of shortlog entries, 2010-09-08) implemented support for the --log= switch, which would explicitly set the number of shortlog entries. However, git-pull does not recognize this option, and will instead pass it to git-fetch, leading to "unknown option" errors. Fix this by matching --log=* in addition to --log and --no-log. Implement a test for this use case. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

pull: remove --tags error in no merge candidates case

2015-05-14T16:52:51Z

Since 441ed41 ("git pull --tags": error out with a better message., 2007-12-28), git pull --tags would print a different error message if git-fetch did not return any merge candidates: It doesn't make sense to pull all tags; you probably meant: git fetch --tags This is because at that time, git-fetch --tags would override any configured refspecs, and thus there would be no merge candidates. The error message was thus introduced to prevent confusion. However, since c5a84e9 (fetch --tags: fetch tags *in addition to* other stuff, 2013-10-30), git fetch --tags would fetch tags in addition to any configured refspecs. Hence, if any no merge candidates situation occurs, it is not because --tags was set. As such, this special error message is now irrelevant. To prevent confusion, remove this error message. Signed-off-by: Paul Tan Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

merge: deprecate 'git merge HEAD ' syntax

2015-04-29T20:28:10Z

We had this in "git merge" manual for eternity: 'git merge' HEAD ... [This] syntax ( `HEAD` ...) is supported for historical reasons. Do not use it from the command line or in new scripts. It is the same as `git merge -m ...`. With the update to "git merge" to make it understand what is recorded in FETCH_HEAD directly, including Octopus merge cases, we now can rewrite the use of this syntax in "git pull" with a simple "git merge FETCH_HEAD". Also there are quite a few fallouts in the test scripts, and it turns out that "git cvsimport" also uses this old syntax to record a merge. Judging from this result, I would not be surprised if dropping the support of the old syntax broke scripts people have written and been relying on for the past ten years. But at least we can start the deprecation process by throwing a warning message when the syntax is used. With luck, we might be able to drop the support in a few years. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano