Re: [PATCH] pull: add --hard mode

Phillip Wood <[email protected]> writes:

> I think if the design was slightly different so that it errored out by 
> default if there were uncommitted changes then that would make it worth 
> while as it is safer than "git fetch; git reset --hard @{u}" and would 
> allow the user to carry over those changes with "--autostash". So to me 
> something like
>
> 	git pull --reset [--discard-changes | --autostash]
>
> would be a more convincing design.
> ...
> If it refused to reset by default when there were uncommitted changes 
> would that be safe enough? Uncommitted changes would be protected and 
> any local commits that become unreachable after the reset can still be 
> retrieved from the reflog. It's not quite the same as integrating remote 
> and local changes, but more like updating the working copy.

Yup, but git pull --ff-only serves the "No development is done in
this repository; it is merely to keep the latest sources here"
audience just fine.

What you are suggesting may be *useful* for those who agree with
this statement:

    I do value my local changes because I haven't committed them,
    but I am willing to discard these changes and replace them with
    whatever the upstream did.

but I am not sure of the use case for a repository/working tree
that is managed in such a way.