68

Say my current branch is myfeature. I want to get master up to date. Both git merge git pull always merge into the current branch, as far as I can tell.

Is there a way to merge changes from a remote branch (eg, origin/master) into a branch I'm not currently on (master)? I can think of one way:

git stash
git checkout master
git pull origin/master
git checkout myfeature
git stash apply

Is there a better one?

(It's possibly my whole question is wrong: would git fetch automatically update master to match origin/master, if remote-tracking is enabled?)

pkamb
  • 33,281
  • 23
  • 160
  • 191
Steve Bennett
  • 114,604
  • 39
  • 168
  • 219
  • 4
    I found the answer that worked for me in another stackoverflow post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3216360/merge-update-and-pull-git-branches-without-using-checkouts Basically: `git fetch :` – koral Sep 10 '14 at 22:51
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of [Merge, update, and pull Git branches without using checkouts](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3216360/merge-update-and-pull-git-branches-without-using-checkouts) – pkamb Aug 10 '17 at 20:26

3 Answers3

83
git fetch -u origin master:master

Merge, update, and pull Git branches without using checkouts

git fetch -u <remote> <remoteBranch>:<localBranch>

The -u or --update-head-ok ensures that the command still works even if you have the given branch checked out, which otherwise gives the error:

fatal: Refusing to fetch into current branch refs/heads/master of non-bare repository

pkamb
  • 33,281
  • 23
  • 160
  • 191
  • 1
    Very nice! – saves the nuisance of 'switch to main, pull, switch to branch' before rebasing my stuff to the current main... – Frank N Oct 17 '18 at 09:59
5

You are correct that pull/merge only merges into the current branch.

You can, however, still use fetch. For instance (names below changed to protect the innocent but the hashes are real):

$ git branch | grep '^*'
* SOMEBRANCH
$ git rev-parse OTHER_BRANCH origin/OTHER_BRANCH
7b9b8e57cf19964b60ebda0f03a1d5da3de9e2fe
7b9b8e57cf19964b60ebda0f03a1d5da3de9e2fe
$ git fetch
7b9b8e5..1efca56  OTHER_BRANCH -> origin/OTHER_BRANCH
$ git rev-parse OTHER_BRANCH origin/OTHER_BRANCH
7b9b8e57cf19964b60ebda0f03a1d5da3de9e2fe
1efca56c08b7a0f511a3951195656a798c56aa62

In this case, fetch updated a bunch of origin/ branches. None of the local branches were updated (git rev-parse output for those remains the same) but the new commits are now in the repo and can be viewed (git log origin/OTHER_BRANCH, gitk --all, etc).

Depending on your needs, this might be sufficient. In particular you can see what needs to be applied from origin/master onto master, all without leaving your current branch.

torek
  • 448,244
  • 59
  • 642
  • 775
  • Ok, I see what you're saying - I can start using commands like "git branch --merged origin/master" instead of "git branch --merged master". But otherwise, just a minor annoying limitation of git. – Steve Bennett Mar 17 '12 at 13:08
  • You can also automate the whole "stash, checkout other branch, pull, return to previous branch, stash apply" sequence. To find what branch you're on now: `$ if name=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD); then ...` followed by a check for `$name` having the form `refs/heads/*` (and stripping off the refs/heads/ part). See also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9752619/get-pretty-git-rev-name. Watch out for a failed merge though! – torek Mar 18 '12 at 01:41
2

I've begun using github's hub sync helper to automate this process, rather than relying on fetching individual branches that change between the various repos you're working on:

hub is an extension to command-line git that helps you do everyday GitHub tasks without ever leaving the terminal. https://hub.github.com/

$ hub sync
  • If the local branch is outdated, fast-forward it;
  • If the local branch contains unpushed work, warn about it;
  • If the branch seems merged and its upstream branch was deleted, delete it.

Running hub sync safely updates all of your local branches to the version on the remote.

pkamb
  • 33,281
  • 23
  • 160
  • 191