Excerpts from Aidan Van Dyk's message of mié sep 22 16:20:15 -0400 2010:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can see, I need to go to the master clone, run a checkout
> > and pull on each branch, and *then* a pull on the local clone updates to
> > the latest head on that branch. It is not enough to pull when the
> > master branch is checked out.
>
> What I think has happened is that you have a master clone, and you've
> cloned *that* to your "working" repositories, right?
Yep. This is in accord with the instructions written in this section:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_with_Git#Dependent_Clone_per_Branch.2C_Pushing_and_Pulling_From_a_Local_Repository
> And you "pull" in your master repository, and that updates the
> *remote* tracking branches. But it doesn't automatically "merge" (or
> what you want, replace) the *local* branches of the master repository.
> Until you do so.
Right.
> I think what you want in this case (where you have a local "master"
> repositroy, and clone your work of them) is to make your master
> repository just be a bare mirror repo, not a
> full-fledged-with-working-directory repository. If it's just a mirror
> of the remote, it doesn't have the distinction between "remote"
> branches and "local" branches, and your local working clones of it
> will see exactly what it's fetched from the remote.
Yeah, I think this is what I want. I'll try to see how to make that work.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
