doc: git-pull: clarify DESCRIPTION section

I got feedback from 15 Git users on the current git pull man page, using this tool: https://text-feedback.wizardzines.com/git-pull.

My goals here are to be clear about the relationship between git pull and fetch/merge/rebase etc, make sure users know the current default for git pull (--ff-only) since some folks still remember the old default, and to help users quickly figure out what command they need to run to merge/rebase/squash/etc.

I've taken a pretty aggressive approach because I think it's possible to have a pretty short and focused DESCRIPTION section here while keeping the most important info. Open to hearing that I've removed too much.

This references the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section from
https://lore.kernel.org/git/0ec629d4037bf5d1ccc248ca1bbd87ccc08119a3.1757703309.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
, so if that isn't merged I'll need to revisit the approach here.

Julia Evans (4):
doc: git-pull: move <repository> and <refspec> params
doc: git-pull: clarify options for integrating remote branch
doc: git-pull: delete the example
doc: git-pull: clarify how to exit a conflicted merge

 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 86 ++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

base-commit: ca2559c1d630eb4f04cdee2328aaf1c768907a9e
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1976%2Fjvns%2Fclarify-pull-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1976/jvns/clarify-pull-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1976

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- it's confusing that we use both <branch> and <refspec> to refer to the second argument
- one user is not clear about what refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* is meant to be an example of ("is it like a path?")

The DESCRIPTION section is also doing a lot right now: it's trying to describe both how the <repository> and <refspec> arguments work (which is pretty complex, as seen in the DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR section) as well as how git pull calls git fetch and merge/rebase/etc depending on the arguments.

Handle this by moving the description of the <repository> and <refspec> arguments to the OPTIONS section, so that we can focus on the merge/rebase/etc behaviour in the DESCRIPTION section, and refer folks to the later sections for details.

Use the term "upstream" instead of 'the "remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch' since users are more likely to know what an "upstream" is.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

index 48e924a10a..50af7fde81 100644
@@ -27,17 +27,6 @@ and then depending on configuration options or command line flags,
 will call either `git rebase` or `git merge` to reconcile diverging
 branches.
 
-<repository> should be the name of a remote repository as
-passed to linkgit:git-fetch[1].  <refspec> can name an
-arbitrary remote ref (for example, the name of a tag) or even
-a collection of refs with corresponding remote-tracking branches
-(e.g., refs/heads/{asterisk}:refs/remotes/origin/{asterisk}),
-but usually it is the name of a branch in the remote repository.
-
-Default values for <repository> and <branch> are read from the
-"remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch
-as set by linkgit:git-branch[1] `--track`.
-
 Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
 "`master`":
 

@@ -77,6 +66,24 @@ pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
 OPTIONS
 -------
 
+<repository>::
+	The "remote" repository to pull from.  This can be either
+	a URL (see the section <<URLS,GIT URLS>> below) or the name
+	of a remote (see the section <<REMOTES,REMOTES>> below).
++
+Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch, or `origin`.
+See UPSTREAM BRANCHES below for more on how to configure upstreams.
+
+<refspec>::
+	Which branch or other reference(s) to fetch and integrate into the
+	current branch, for example `main` in `git pull origin main`.
+	Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch.
++
+This can be a branch, tag, or other collection of reference(s).
+See <refspec> below under "Options related to fetching" for the full syntax,
+and DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR below for how `git pull` uses this argument to
+determine which remote branch to integrate.
+
 -q::
 --quiet::
 	This is passed to both underlying git-fetch to squelch reporting of

gitgitgadget

Yep.

Also yep, since the deleted text doesn't contain any pointers to learn what a refspec is.

I generally like this: it makes things a bit more consistent, even though "options" isn't quite how I think of these (optional!) positional parameters. Still, I generally jump down to the <arg> sections (like in git-push(1)) to learn what I can do with those.

With the upstream section, great.

D. Ben Knoble

That's a good point. It's a bit weird because (I think) git pull does use the <refspec> parameter after passing it to git fetch` (to decide which remote branch to merge), so we can't just say "to know what the refspec parameter does, see "git fetch", and we can't just copy the existing <refspec> section further up.

Rewriting the <refspec> section of git fetch so that it addresses both the git pull and git fetch case seems like it would just add more confusion.

Duplicating the content of the <repository> bit and then referencing the second <refspec> section below is the least bad option I can think of right now, since most of the time you don't actually need to know how to write a refspec.

I'll add some internal links in the HTML version to the <refspec> and DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR sections so that they'll be easier to find in the HTML version at least.

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- One user is confused about the current default ("I was convinced that the git default was still to merge on pull")
- One user is confused about why "git fetch" isn't mentioned earlier
- One user says they always forget what the arguments to git pull are and that it's not immediately obvious that --no-rebase means "merge"
- One user wants --ff-only to be mentioned

Resolve this by listing the options for integrating the the remote branch. This should help users figure out at a glance which one they want to do, and make it clearer that --ff-only is the default.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

index 50af7fde81..61d18fef36 100644
@@ -15,17 +15,20 @@ SYNOPSIS
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
 
-Incorporates changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
-If the current branch is behind the remote, then by default it will
-fast-forward the current branch to match the remote.  If the current
-branch and the remote have diverged, the user needs to specify how to
-reconcile the divergent branches with `--rebase` or `--no-rebase` (or
-the corresponding configuration option in `pull.rebase`).
-
-More precisely, `git pull` runs `git fetch` with the given parameters
-and then depending on configuration options or command line flags,
-will call either `git rebase` or `git merge` to reconcile diverging
-branches.
+Integrate changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
+
+First, `git pull` runs `git fetch` with the same arguments to fetch
+remote branch(es). Then it integrates the remote branch into the current
+branch. There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
+
+1. `git pull --ff-only` will only do "fast-forward" updates: it
+   fails if the remote branch has diverged. This is the default.
+2. `git pull --rebase` runs `git rebase`
+3. `git pull --no-rebase` runs `git merge`.
+4. `git pull --squash` runs `git merge --squash`
+
+You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
+or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
 Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
 "`master`":

gitgitgadget

That's a good point, I'll try to think of a better way to phrase it.

I guess the truth is that git pull has three categories of options, those it passes verbatim to git fetch, those it passes verbatim to git merge, and the others (-q, -v, and --recurse-submodules).
That's a bit of a mouthful but maybe there's a way to say that explicitly that isn't too awkward, it does seem helpful to know when reading the OPTIONS section.

I find it confusing too. My current strategy for handling this here is to somewhat awkwardly say "it's explained in the DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR section" a bit further down.

It's a tricky situation because I find the DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR section very confusing. It seems like there's a fair amount of duplication with other sections that could be cleaned up to make it easier. But removing the duplication and making it easier to understand feels like too many changes for this series, especially because really doing it well probably involves the sub-project of "clean up the <refspec> section of the git fetch man page".

In any case, I'll see if I can find a way to make it a little less awkward.

I would suggest "equivalent" or (perhaps better) "appropriate". Perhaps even:

First, git pull runs the equivalent of git fetch with the arguments needed to fetch necessary branches from the remote ...

Definition of these arguments can be deferred (perhaps even indefinitely); but:

here we'd need something along the lines of:

Then it integrates the appropriate remote branch ...

and here we *do* have to define "appropriate".

(Historically the merge step grabbed stuff from FETCH_HEAD, excluding all the "not-for-merge" parts, and I have never dug into what happens now...)

Chris

I like the idea of adding "appropriate" here. The question of how to define it is a little messy.

We do define "appropriate" below under <refspec>, like this:

Like I mentioned in another reply I think deferring the question of what "the appropriate branch" is to the DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR section like this does is not a "good" long-term solution because that section is so confusing, but I think it's not worse than the current state and I don't want to expand the scope of this patch series too much.

However! I think there's a question of what behaviour to "encourage". Over on the git push side, we decided to highlight using
git push origin main to push, because the behaviour of git push origin main is simple to explain ("it pushes the local main branch to the main on the origin remote").

So a natural next question is: should we equivalently highlight "git pull origin main", to mirror the git push man page?
Then it would be easy to say what "the appropriate branch" is, because in that case the branch is "whatever branch you specified"

My initial instinct is "no": git push origin main also feels sort of "foolproof" to me, in the sense that if you accidentally run it while on the wrong branch, nothing really bad will happen, since it doesn't matter what your current branch is.

But git pull is not the same, since running git pull origin <wrong-branch> will integrate <wrong-branch> into your current branch, which could get confusing if you accidentally pulled while on the wrong branch. Personally I use git pull without any arguments, and it feels safer to me that way because I know that I'm likely to have set my upstream to something reasonable.

I also did some extremely informal and low-sample-size Mastodon polling and my sense so far is that folks tend to run git pull with no arguments in practice. So I think it makes sense to highlight the no-arguments version.

And in any case if you want to get really specific about what you're pulling I think going straight to "manually fetch and then run git merge yourself" is a safer approach instead of passing arguments to git pull.

All of that is to say: my best idea for how to resolve all of this is as follows:

This explains what the "appropriate branch" is in (I think) the most common use case and deals with the "same arguments" issue.

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback: this example is confusing because it implies that git pull will run git merge by default, but the default is --ff-only.

We could instead show an example of a fast-forward merge, but that may not add a lot since fast-forward merges are relatively simple. This lets us keep the description short.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 26 --------------------------
 1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)

index 61d18fef36..91903b0a94 100644
@@ -30,32 +30,6 @@ branch. There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
 You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
 or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
-Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
-"`master`":
-
-------------
-	  A---B---C master on origin
-	 /
-    D---E---F---G master
-	^
-	origin/master in your repository
-------------
-
-Then "`git pull`" will fetch and replay the changes from the remote
-`master` branch since it diverged from the local `master` (i.e., `E`)
-until its current commit (`C`) on top of `master` and record the
-result in a new commit along with the names of the two parent commits
-and a log message from the user describing the changes.
-
-------------
-	  A---B---C origin/master
-	 /         \
-    D---E---F---G---H master
-------------
-
-See linkgit:git-merge[1] for details, including how conflicts
-are presented and handled.
-
 In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
 `git reset --merge`.  *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
 with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- One user is confused about why git reset --merge
(why not just git reset?). Handle this by mentioning git merge --abort and git reset --abort instead, which have a more obvious meaning.
- 2 users want to know what "In older versions of Git" means exactly (in versions older than 1.7.0). Handle this by removing the warning since it was added 15 years ago (in 3f8fc184c0e2c)

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 12 +++---------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

index 91903b0a94..eec05ab6c7 100644
@@ -30,15 +30,9 @@ branch. There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
 You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
 or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
-In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
-`git reset --merge`.  *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
-with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you
-in a state that may be hard to back out of in the case of a conflict.
-
-If any of the remote changes overlap with local uncommitted changes,
-the merge will be automatically canceled and the work tree untouched.
-It is generally best to get any local changes in working order before
-pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
+If there's a merge conflict during the merge or rebase that you don't
+want to handle, you can safely abort it with `git merge --abort` or `git
+--rebase abort`.
 
 OPTIONS
 -------

gitgitgadget

discouraged: while possible, it may leave you in a state that is hard to back out of in the case of a conflict.

I think I was probably too hasty in removing the warning entirely, since I mainly use git pull --rebase and I hadn't fully thought through how git merge has a different approach to uncommitted changes than git rebase.

I think a warning similar to that one would make sense, since any warning that applies to git merge should also apply to git pull.

"git reset --merge" _can_ be helpful when merging, but won't fully abort a rebase. Great.

D. Ben Knoble

I think it's a nice way to reiterate that git pull is running a merge or rebase under the hood, but if folks feel strongly that this isn't relevant I'd be happy to remove the git merge --abort / git rebase --abort note.

While fiddling around: turns out reset’s merge flag does abort the merge properly. TMTOWTDI, I suppose.

I’d probably prefer to keep the pull->{merge,rebase} implication. I just want « how do I know which one » to be clear.

Huh! I thought pull would merge divergent histories by default, and even now it's hard to extract that info from the manual (the first paragraph actually mentions reconciliation via --rebase/--no-rebase, but I thought --no-rebase was still the default). TIL, thanks!

A common way to handle this is to build your topic on top of the topic you depend on, and then mention that in your cover letter. I'm not sure how GitGitGadget handles that, though, since with format-patch you could then specify to send patches only from <other-topic>..<this-topic>. So I think this is probably ok?

D. Ben Knoble

I got feedback from 15 Git users on the current git pull man page, using this tool: https://text-feedback.wizardzines.com/git-pull.

My goals here are to be clear about the relationship between git pull and fetch/merge/rebase etc, make sure users know the current default for git pull (--ff-only) since some folks still remember the old default, and to help users quickly figure out what command they need to run to merge/rebase/squash/etc.

I've taken a pretty aggressive approach because I think it's possible to have a pretty short and focused DESCRIPTION section here while keeping the most important info. Open to hearing that I've removed too much.

This references the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section from
https://lore.kernel.org/git/0ec629d4037bf5d1ccc248ca1bbd87ccc08119a3.1757703309.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
, so if that isn't merged I'll need to revisit the approach here.

changes in v2:

* Add "(excluding merge options)" to clarify which options are passed to git fetch (from Chris's review)
* Say that git pull will by default merge the upstream branch. (from Chris's review)
* Add some links to the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, and to the <refspec> section in git fetch, to make it easier to navigate in the HTML version of the docs at least. The situation where we repeat the <repository> part in git fetch is weird but I don't have a better idea for how to handle it right now. The UPSTREAM BRANCHES links are currently failing the documentation tests, but should pass once the patch series that adds that is merged. (from Ben's review)

Julia Evans (4):
doc: git-pull: move <repository> and <refspec> params
doc: git-pull: clarify options for integrating remote branch
doc: git-pull: delete the example
doc: git-pull: clarify how to exit a conflicted merge

 Documentation/git-pull.adoc         | 92 ++++++++++++-----------------
 Documentation/pull-fetch-param.adoc |  1 +
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

base-commit: ca2559c1d630eb4f04cdee2328aaf1c768907a9e
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1976%2Fjvns%2Fclarify-pull-v2
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1976/jvns/clarify-pull-v2
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1976

Range-diff vs v1:

1: f69d2e6fab ! 1: 4cc87ec354 doc: git-pull: move <repository> and <refspec> params
@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1
+ of a remote (see the section <<REMOTES,REMOTES>> below).
++
+Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch, or origin.
-+See UPSTREAM BRANCHES below for more on how to configure upstreams. ++See <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,UPSTREAM BRANCHES>> below for more on how to ++configure upstreams.
+
+<refspec>::
+ Which branch or other reference(s) to fetch and integrate into the
@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1
+ Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch.
++
+This can be a branch, tag, or other collection of reference(s).
-+See <refspec> below under "Options related to fetching" for the full syntax, -+and DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR below for how git pull uses this argument to -+determine which remote branch to integrate.
++See <<fetch-refspec,<refspec>>> below under "Options related to fetching" ++for the full syntax, and <<DEFAULT-BEHAVIOUR,DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR>> below ++for how git pull uses this argument to determine which remote branch ++to integrate.
+
-q::
--quiet::
This is passed to both underlying git-fetch to squelch reporting of
+@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: include::urls-remotes.adoc[]
+
+ include::merge-strategies.adoc[]
+
++[[DEFAULT-BEHAVIOUR]]
+ DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR
+ -----------------
+
+
+ ## Documentation/pull-fetch-param.adoc ##
+@@ Documentation/pull-fetch-param.adoc: ifndef::git-pull[]
+ (See linkgit:git-config[1]).
+ endif::git-pull[]
+
++[[fetch-refspec]]
+ <refspec>::
+ Specifies which refs to fetch and which local refs to update.
+ When no <refspec>s appear on the command line, the refs to fetch
2: ffbb9d7c6a ! 2: 122774d4cc doc: git-pull: clarify options for integrating remote branch
@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: SYNOPSIS
-branches.
+Integrate changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
+
-+First, git pull runs git fetch with the same arguments to fetch -+remote branch(es). Then it integrates the remote branch into the current -+branch. There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
++First, git pull runs git fetch with the same arguments
++(excluding merge options) to fetch remote branch(es).
++Then it decides which remote branch to integrate: if you run git pull ++with no arguments this defaults to the <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,upstream>> ++for the current branch.
++Then it integrates that branch into the current branch.
++
++There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
+
+1. git pull --ff-only will only do "fast-forward" updates: it
+ fails if the remote branch has diverged. This is the default.
3: 76dc2c19fb ! 3: 323e81f2fd doc: git-pull: delete the example
@@ Commit message

## Documentation/git-pull.adoc ##
-@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: branch. There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
+@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
You can also set the configuration options pull.rebase, pull.squash,
or pull.ff with your preferred behaviour.

4: c7f09c2bd3 ! 4: 999dfba156 doc: git-pull: clarify how to exit a conflicted merge
@@ Commit message

## Documentation/git-pull.adoc ##
-@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: branch. There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
+@@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
You can also set the configuration options pull.rebase, pull.squash,
or pull.ff with your preferred behaviour.

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- it's confusing that we use both <branch> and <refspec> to refer to the second argument
- one user is not clear about what refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* is meant to be an example of ("is it like a path?")

The DESCRIPTION section is also doing a lot right now: it's trying to describe both how the <repository> and <refspec> arguments work (which is pretty complex, as seen in the DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR section) as well as how git pull calls git fetch and merge/rebase/etc depending on the arguments.

Handle this by moving the description of the <repository> and <refspec> arguments to the OPTIONS section, so that we can focus on the merge/rebase/etc behaviour in the DESCRIPTION section, and refer folks to the later sections for details.

Use the term "upstream" instead of 'the "remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch' since users are more likely to know what an "upstream" is.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc         | 32 +++++++++++++++++++----------
 Documentation/pull-fetch-param.adoc |  1 +
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

index 48e924a10a..a3d248dd1d 100644
@@ -27,17 +27,6 @@ and then depending on configuration options or command line flags,
 will call either `git rebase` or `git merge` to reconcile diverging
 branches.
 
-<repository> should be the name of a remote repository as
-passed to linkgit:git-fetch[1].  <refspec> can name an
-arbitrary remote ref (for example, the name of a tag) or even
-a collection of refs with corresponding remote-tracking branches
-(e.g., refs/heads/{asterisk}:refs/remotes/origin/{asterisk}),
-but usually it is the name of a branch in the remote repository.
-
-Default values for <repository> and <branch> are read from the
-"remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch
-as set by linkgit:git-branch[1] `--track`.
-
 Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
 "`master`":
 

@@ -77,6 +66,26 @@ pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
 OPTIONS
 -------
 
+<repository>::
+	The "remote" repository to pull from.  This can be either
+	a URL (see the section <<URLS,GIT URLS>> below) or the name
+	of a remote (see the section <<REMOTES,REMOTES>> below).
++
+Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch, or `origin`.
+See <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,UPSTREAM BRANCHES>> below for more on how to
+configure upstreams.
+
+<refspec>::
+	Which branch or other reference(s) to fetch and integrate into the
+	current branch, for example `main` in `git pull origin main`.
+	Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch.
++
+This can be a branch, tag, or other collection of reference(s).
+See <<fetch-refspec,<refspec>>> below under "Options related to fetching"
+for the full syntax, and <<DEFAULT-BEHAVIOUR,DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR>> below
+for how `git pull` uses this argument to determine which remote branch
+to integrate.
+
 -q::
 --quiet::
 	This is passed to both underlying git-fetch to squelch reporting of

@@ -145,6 +154,7 @@ include::urls-remotes.adoc[]
 
 include::merge-strategies.adoc[]
 
+[[DEFAULT-BEHAVIOUR]]
 DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR
 -----------------
 

index d79d2f6065..bb2cf6a462 100644
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ ifndef::git-pull[]
 	(See linkgit:git-config[1]).
 endif::git-pull[]
 
+[[fetch-refspec]]
 <refspec>::
 	Specifies which refs to fetch and which local refs to update.
 	When no <refspec>s appear on the command line, the refs to fetch

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- One user is confused about the current default ("I was convinced that the git default was still to merge on pull")
- One user is confused about why "git fetch" isn't mentioned earlier
- One user says they always forget what the arguments to git pull are and that it's not immediately obvious that --no-rebase means "merge"
- One user wants --ff-only to be mentioned

Resolve this by listing the options for integrating the the remote branch. This should help users figure out at a glance which one they want to do, and make it clearer that --ff-only is the default.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 30 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

index a3d248dd1d..6e9fa14967 100644
@@ -15,17 +15,25 @@ SYNOPSIS
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
 
-Incorporates changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
-If the current branch is behind the remote, then by default it will
-fast-forward the current branch to match the remote.  If the current
-branch and the remote have diverged, the user needs to specify how to
-reconcile the divergent branches with `--rebase` or `--no-rebase` (or
-the corresponding configuration option in `pull.rebase`).
-
-More precisely, `git pull` runs `git fetch` with the given parameters
-and then depending on configuration options or command line flags,
-will call either `git rebase` or `git merge` to reconcile diverging
-branches.
+Integrate changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
+
+First, `git pull` runs `git fetch` with the same arguments
+(excluding merge options) to fetch remote branch(es).
+Then it decides which remote branch to integrate: if you run `git pull`
+with no arguments this defaults to the <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,upstream>>
+for the current branch.
+Then it integrates that branch into the current branch.
+
+There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
+
+1. `git pull --ff-only` will only do "fast-forward" updates: it
+   fails if the remote branch has diverged. This is the default.
+2. `git pull --rebase` runs `git rebase`
+3. `git pull --no-rebase` runs `git merge`.
+4. `git pull --squash` runs `git merge --squash`
+
+You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
+or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
 Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
 "`master`":

gitgitgadget

This technically does not integrate remote branch into our current branch. Rather, the commits on our current branch are integrated on top of their history. That may be worth noting? I dunno.

Thanks, I meant to fix that earlier. Will fix to say "if your local branch has diverged from the remote".

At least 2 users who read this also commented that they find the word "integrate" using, for perhaps a similar reason. Specifically, one comment was "unclear if 'integrate' is a technical/specific term or just generic".

My assumption was that the word "integrate" was meant to be a generic way to communicate "combine the changes in the two branches in some unspecified way", and that's how I was using it. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "integrate" (is it "merge"?).

I see a few options here:

1. Try to find a different word that communicates "combine the two branches in a way that you have to specify". I'm not sure how likely this is to succeed.
2. Instead of using the word "integrate", instead always say something like "merge or rebase". I tried this but I found it a bit unwieldy, and I think it might also be confusing for users who aren't familiar with both merge and rebase, they might worry "do I need to understand rebase to use git pull?", when of course you don't.
3. Keep the word "integrate".

I'm very open to hearing suggestions here, maybe there's another better way I haven't thought of.

I think I'm happy with how the two different defaults are being described right now, but I'll run this by some folks and see what they think.

(confusing)

I wonder if “integration” is like “upstream”; frequently used but not really explained? (see gitworkflows(7); one mention in gitglossary(7)).

I think Martin Fowler has the correct (useful) view on branches:[1]

In thinking about these patterns, I find it useful to develop two main categories. One group looks at integration, how multiple developers combine their work into a coherent whole. The other looks at the path to production, using branching to help manage the route from an integrated code base to a product running in production.

Specifically the first category.

Then later:

Branching is about managing the interplay of isolation and integration. Having everyone work on a single shared codebase all the time, doesn't work because I can't compile the program if you're in the middle of typing a variable name. So at least to some degree, we need a notion of a private workspace that I can work on for a while. Modern source code controls tools make it easy to branch and monitor changes to those branches. At some point however we need to integrate. Thinking about branching strategies is really all about deciding how and when we integrate.

🔗 1: https://martinfowler.com/articles/branching-patterns.html

The point of *most* branches ought to be this: you need isolation, but you also want to eventually integrate with upstream, the trunk, or whatever else.

• Everyone working on everything at the same time is chaos
• Everyone working on their own thing in isolation forever is Balkanization
• Forking a private space to integrate later in a timely manner strikes the right balance
• (Then there are the dozens of variations of long-living forks, private forks for the changes that you want to make but few others want...)

So I don’t think that

is quite it, because the direction is towards one integration branch, one upstream, one trunk, main branch (not whichever one).

... and regarding “unspecified”: I suspect the contention might be distinction between integrating the branchy itself (with those commits) with replaying fresh commits (rebase). But I don’t know.

It is how I was using it, too.

Not limited to "merge", but I view it more as between two parties, one side supplies changes while the other side serves as a base. A merge looks as if the changes of a side branch gets incorporated into the trunk. A rebase looks as if the changes you have created gets incorporated into the trunk by replaying them onto the trunk.

I am not particularly good at finding verbs, sorry.

Very true.

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback: this example is confusing because it implies that git pull will run git merge by default, but the default is --ff-only.

We could instead show an example of a fast-forward merge, but that may not add a lot since fast-forward merges are relatively simple. This lets us keep the description short.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 26 --------------------------
 1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)

index 6e9fa14967..dc93e5e6d7 100644
@@ -35,32 +35,6 @@ There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
 You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
 or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
-Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
-"`master`":
-
-------------
-	  A---B---C master on origin
-	 /
-    D---E---F---G master
-	^
-	origin/master in your repository
-------------
-
-Then "`git pull`" will fetch and replay the changes from the remote
-`master` branch since it diverged from the local `master` (i.e., `E`)
-until its current commit (`C`) on top of `master` and record the
-result in a new commit along with the names of the two parent commits
-and a log message from the user describing the changes.
-
-------------
-	  A---B---C origin/master
-	 /         \
-    D---E---F---G---H master
-------------
-
-See linkgit:git-merge[1] for details, including how conflicts
-are presented and handled.
-
 In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
 `git reset --merge`.  *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
 with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- One user is confused about why git reset --merge
(why not just git reset?). Handle this by mentioning git merge --abort and git reset --abort instead, which have a more obvious meaning.
- 2 users want to know what "In older versions of Git" means exactly (in versions older than 1.7.0). Handle this by removing the warning since it was added 15 years ago (in 3f8fc184c0e2c)

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 12 +++---------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

index dc93e5e6d7..8d286425d6 100644
@@ -35,15 +35,9 @@ There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
 You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
 or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
-In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
-`git reset --merge`.  *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
-with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you
-in a state that may be hard to back out of in the case of a conflict.
-
-If any of the remote changes overlap with local uncommitted changes,
-the merge will be automatically canceled and the work tree untouched.
-It is generally best to get any local changes in working order before
-pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
+If there's a merge conflict during the merge or rebase that you don't
+want to handle, you can safely abort it with `git merge --abort` or `git
+--rebase abort`.
 
 OPTIONS
 -------

gitgitgadget

I got feedback from 15 Git users on the current git pull man page, using this tool: https://text-feedback.wizardzines.com/git-pull.

My goals here are to be clear about the relationship between git pull and fetch/merge/rebase etc, make sure users know the current default for git pull (--ff-only) since some folks still remember the old default, and to help users quickly figure out what command they need to run to merge/rebase/squash/etc.

I've taken a pretty aggressive approach because I think it's possible to have a pretty short and focused DESCRIPTION section here while keeping the most important info. Open to hearing that I've removed too much.

This references the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section from
https://lore.kernel.org/git/0ec629d4037bf5d1ccc248ca1bbd87ccc08119a3.1757703309.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
, so if that isn't merged I'll need to revisit the approach here.

changes in v2:

* Add "(excluding merge options)" to clarify which options are passed to git fetch (from Chris's review)
* Say that git pull will by default merge the upstream branch. (from Chris's review)
* Add some links to the UPSTREAM BRANCHES section, and to the <refspec> section in git fetch, to make it easier to navigate in the HTML version of the docs at least. The situation where we repeat the <repository> part in git fetch is weird but I don't have a better idea for how to handle it right now. The UPSTREAM BRANCHES links are currently failing the documentation tests, but should pass once the patch series that adds that is merged. (from Ben's review)

changes in v3:

Change "fails if the local branch has diverged" to say "remote branch has diverged", from Junio's review.

I did not come up with a better idea for a word to use than "integrate" so left that alone.

Julia Evans (4):
doc: git-pull: move <repository> and <refspec> params
doc: git-pull: clarify options for integrating remote branch
doc: git-pull: delete the example
doc: git-pull: clarify how to exit a conflicted merge

 Documentation/git-pull.adoc         | 93 +++++++++++++----------------
 Documentation/pull-fetch-param.adoc |  1 +
 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

base-commit: ca2559c1d630eb4f04cdee2328aaf1c768907a9e
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1976%2Fjvns%2Fclarify-pull-v3
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1976/jvns/clarify-pull-v3
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1976

Range-diff vs v2:

 1:  4cc87ec354 = 1:  96b2673e04 doc: git-pull: move <repository> and <refspec> params
 2:  122774d4cc ! 2:  0ff00b4ff6 doc: git-pull: clarify options for integrating remote branch
     @@ Documentation/git-pull.adoc: SYNOPSIS
      +There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
      +
      +1. `git pull --ff-only` will only do "fast-forward" updates: it
     -+   fails if the remote branch has diverged. This is the default.
     ++   fails if your local branch has diverged from the remote branch.
     ++   This is the default.
      +2. `git pull --rebase` runs `git rebase`
      +3. `git pull --no-rebase` runs `git merge`.
      +4. `git pull --squash` runs `git merge --squash`
 3:  323e81f2fd = 3:  2439c3d847 doc: git-pull: delete the example
 4:  999dfba156 = 4:  2236dac4e4 doc: git-pull: clarify how to exit a conflicted merge

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- it's confusing that we use both <branch> and <refspec> to refer to the second argument
- one user is not clear about what refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* is meant to be an example of ("is it like a path?")

The DESCRIPTION section is also doing a lot right now: it's trying to describe both how the <repository> and <refspec> arguments work (which is pretty complex, as seen in the DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR section) as well as how git pull calls git fetch and merge/rebase/etc depending on the arguments.

Handle this by moving the description of the <repository> and <refspec> arguments to the OPTIONS section, so that we can focus on the merge/rebase/etc behaviour in the DESCRIPTION section, and refer folks to the later sections for details.

Use the term "upstream" instead of 'the "remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch' since users are more likely to know what an "upstream" is.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc         | 32 +++++++++++++++++++----------
 Documentation/pull-fetch-param.adoc |  1 +
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

index 48e924a10a..a3d248dd1d 100644
@@ -27,17 +27,6 @@ and then depending on configuration options or command line flags,
 will call either `git rebase` or `git merge` to reconcile diverging
 branches.
 
-<repository> should be the name of a remote repository as
-passed to linkgit:git-fetch[1].  <refspec> can name an
-arbitrary remote ref (for example, the name of a tag) or even
-a collection of refs with corresponding remote-tracking branches
-(e.g., refs/heads/{asterisk}:refs/remotes/origin/{asterisk}),
-but usually it is the name of a branch in the remote repository.
-
-Default values for <repository> and <branch> are read from the
-"remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch
-as set by linkgit:git-branch[1] `--track`.
-
 Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
 "`master`":
 

@@ -77,6 +66,26 @@ pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
 OPTIONS
 -------
 
+<repository>::
+	The "remote" repository to pull from.  This can be either
+	a URL (see the section <<URLS,GIT URLS>> below) or the name
+	of a remote (see the section <<REMOTES,REMOTES>> below).
++
+Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch, or `origin`.
+See <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,UPSTREAM BRANCHES>> below for more on how to
+configure upstreams.
+
+<refspec>::
+	Which branch or other reference(s) to fetch and integrate into the
+	current branch, for example `main` in `git pull origin main`.
+	Defaults to the configured upstream for the current branch.
++
+This can be a branch, tag, or other collection of reference(s).
+See <<fetch-refspec,<refspec>>> below under "Options related to fetching"
+for the full syntax, and <<DEFAULT-BEHAVIOUR,DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR>> below
+for how `git pull` uses this argument to determine which remote branch
+to integrate.
+
 -q::
 --quiet::
 	This is passed to both underlying git-fetch to squelch reporting of

@@ -145,6 +154,7 @@ include::urls-remotes.adoc[]
 
 include::merge-strategies.adoc[]
 
+[[DEFAULT-BEHAVIOUR]]
 DEFAULT BEHAVIOUR
 -----------------
 

index d79d2f6065..bb2cf6a462 100644
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ ifndef::git-pull[]
 	(See linkgit:git-config[1]).
 endif::git-pull[]
 
+[[fetch-refspec]]
 <refspec>::
 	Specifies which refs to fetch and which local refs to update.
 	When no <refspec>s appear on the command line, the refs to fetch

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- One user is confused about the current default ("I was convinced that the git default was still to merge on pull")
- One user is confused about why "git fetch" isn't mentioned earlier
- One user says they always forget what the arguments to git pull are and that it's not immediately obvious that --no-rebase means "merge"
- One user wants --ff-only to be mentioned

Resolve this by listing the options for integrating the the remote branch. This should help users figure out at a glance which one they want to do, and make it clearer that --ff-only is the default.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

index a3d248dd1d..0686a9d666 100644
@@ -15,17 +15,26 @@ SYNOPSIS
 DESCRIPTION
 -----------
 
-Incorporates changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
-If the current branch is behind the remote, then by default it will
-fast-forward the current branch to match the remote.  If the current
-branch and the remote have diverged, the user needs to specify how to
-reconcile the divergent branches with `--rebase` or `--no-rebase` (or
-the corresponding configuration option in `pull.rebase`).
-
-More precisely, `git pull` runs `git fetch` with the given parameters
-and then depending on configuration options or command line flags,
-will call either `git rebase` or `git merge` to reconcile diverging
-branches.
+Integrate changes from a remote repository into the current branch.
+
+First, `git pull` runs `git fetch` with the same arguments
+(excluding merge options) to fetch remote branch(es).
+Then it decides which remote branch to integrate: if you run `git pull`
+with no arguments this defaults to the <<UPSTREAM-BRANCHES,upstream>>
+for the current branch.
+Then it integrates that branch into the current branch.
+
+There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
+
+1. `git pull --ff-only` will only do "fast-forward" updates: it
+   fails if your local branch has diverged from the remote branch.
+   This is the default.
+2. `git pull --rebase` runs `git rebase`
+3. `git pull --no-rebase` runs `git merge`.
+4. `git pull --squash` runs `git merge --squash`
+
+You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
+or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
 Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
 "`master`":

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback: this example is confusing because it implies that git pull will run git merge by default, but the default is --ff-only.

We could instead show an example of a fast-forward merge, but that may not add a lot since fast-forward merges are relatively simple. This lets us keep the description short.

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 26 --------------------------
 1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)

index 0686a9d666..273172aa80 100644
@@ -36,32 +36,6 @@ There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
 You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
 or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
-Assume the following history exists and the current branch is
-"`master`":
-
-------------
-	  A---B---C master on origin
-	 /
-    D---E---F---G master
-	^
-	origin/master in your repository
-------------
-
-Then "`git pull`" will fetch and replay the changes from the remote
-`master` branch since it diverged from the local `master` (i.e., `E`)
-until its current commit (`C`) on top of `master` and record the
-result in a new commit along with the names of the two parent commits
-and a log message from the user describing the changes.
-
-------------
-	  A---B---C origin/master
-	 /         \
-    D---E---F---G---H master
-------------
-
-See linkgit:git-merge[1] for details, including how conflicts
-are presented and handled.
-
 In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
 `git reset --merge`.  *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
 with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you

gitgitgadget

From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>

From user feedback:

- One user is confused about why git reset --merge
(why not just git reset?). Handle this by mentioning git merge --abort and git reset --abort instead, which have a more obvious meaning.
- 2 users want to know what "In older versions of Git" means exactly (in versions older than 1.7.0). Handle this by removing the warning since it was added 15 years ago (in 3f8fc184c0e2c)

---
 Documentation/git-pull.adoc | 12 +++---------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

index 273172aa80..cd3bbc90e3 100644
@@ -36,15 +36,9 @@ There are 4 main options for integrating the remote branch:
 You can also set the configuration options `pull.rebase`, `pull.squash`,
 or `pull.ff` with your preferred behaviour.
 
-In Git 1.7.0 or later, to cancel a conflicting merge, use
-`git reset --merge`.  *Warning*: In older versions of Git, running 'git pull'
-with uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you
-in a state that may be hard to back out of in the case of a conflict.
-
-If any of the remote changes overlap with local uncommitted changes,
-the merge will be automatically canceled and the work tree untouched.
-It is generally best to get any local changes in working order before
-pulling or stash them away with linkgit:git-stash[1].
+If there's a merge conflict during the merge or rebase that you don't
+want to handle, you can safely abort it with `git merge --abort` or `git
+--rebase abort`.
 
 OPTIONS
 -------

gitgitgadget

I’m happy with this version ; anyone else ?

Looking good. I have no more comments on this series at this moment.

Shall I mark the topic for 'next' now?

Thanks.