[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: basic git
From: |
Max Nikulin |
Subject: |
Re: basic git |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Jul 2023 10:25:09 +0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 |
On 01/07/2023 05:15, Samuel Wales wrote:
On 6/30/23, Max Nikulin wrote:
Do you have history of last git commands, e.g. in an emacs eshell
buffer? Please, post them.
It is unclear what was the current branch before (a custom local one,
"bugfix" or "main" tracking the upstream) and whether all local changes
were committed.
502 ado git-pullv # says what's new etc.
I have no idea concerning "ado" and "git-pullv". The "git pull" command
should add changes from the tracked remote branch to your local one.
503 git branch --set-upstream-to=origin/bugfix bugfix
#i was told to do this. it worked ok before. but now it tells me i
have to do something.
This command was necessary just once per local branch when you were
switching from the orgmode.org git repository to savannah. Another use
case is when you want associate a new local branch with a remote one.
504 cd $delbig
505 cd 9bugfix #symlink
So the commands above and below were executed in unrelated clones.
506 git status
507 ado git-pullv
508 git pull
509 git fetch --tags origin #desperation sets in
"git pull" should fetch changes from the remote branch. "git fetch"
obtains changes for all remote branches (remotes/origin/bugfix, etc.)
without touching the local one. So "git fetch" should not break anything.
Perhaps you had a branch that was tracking remotes/origin/main, you
forced to set tracked branch to remotes/origin/bugfix and "git pull"
failed in the process of merging changes from these branches. Usually
the reasonable action is to abort by the command suggested in the "git
status" output to get the state before "git pull".
510 git status
511 ado git-pullv
# this is the !@#$ it moment. should work for sure. ha ha.
512 git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/emacs/org-mode.git
513 mv org-mode ../new
514 cd ..
515 mv org-mode--vanilla-bugfix--ok-to-pull--xyzzy-nomost
../obsolescent--xyzzy-nomost/
516 mv new org-mode--vanilla-bugfix--ok-to-pull--xyzzy-nomost
517 cd org-mode--vanilla-bugfix--ok-to-pull--xyzzy-nomost
I am lost whether you are in the directory with the fresh clone. I would
assume it.
518 git status
519 git gc
Unnecessary in a fresh clone. You may make it impossible recover local
changes if you run it when you are unsure where you are. Will you throw
away garbage when you lost some precious thing and there is a chance
that you put it into the bin with a heap of other stuff?
520 git status
521 git branch bugfix
This may be a cause of confusion. The default branch of the org
repository is "main" (am I right?) and in the fresh clone you should be
on "main". By this command you created a local branch named "bugfix" but
unrelated to the upstream branch. The current (HEAD) commit of the local
"bugfix" points to the current commit.
522 git status
523 git branch
524 git checkout bugfix
This would be a correct command that creates local "bugfix" tracking
remote "bugfix" unless you executed "git branch bugfix" before. Now you
are on a commit from "main".
525 git status
526 ado git-pullv
527 ado diffoldnew cat .git/config
528 git branch --set-upstream-to=origin/bugfix bugfix
I may be wrong with my assumption, but you created local "bugfix"
pointing to a commit from remotes/origin/main and forced it to track
remotes/origin/bugfix. The message from your first post is the plausible
consequence of "git pull" from this state.
If you goal is a clean clone with "bugfix" as the current branch you may do
git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/emacs/org-mode.git \
org-mode--vanilla-bugfix--ok-to-pull--xyzzy-nomost
cd org-mode--vanilla-bugfix--ok-to-pull--xyzzy-nomost
git checkout bugfix
Do you need to recover commits with your local changes or your are
experimenting with clean upstream "bugfix" and "main" branches?
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: basic git,
Max Nikulin <=