Don't mention the author of the PEP

[git-wiki.git] / pep-103.txt

diff --git a/pep-103.txt b/pep-103.txt
index b5ef798a0a46f89f01f9b657d6b47013433ff6fa..ab2c351ec6f580145276637032aa0562bfccc079 100644 (file)
--- a/pep-103.txt
+++ b/pep-103.txt
@@ -193,10 +193,28 @@ remote-tracking branches, creates a local branch ``v1``, configure it
 to track upstream remotes/origin/v1 branch and checks out ``v1`` into
 the working directory.
 
+Some commands, like ``git status --branch`` and ``git branch --verbose``,
+report the difference between local and remote branches.
+Please remember they only do comparison with remote-tracking branches
+in your local repository, and the state of those remote-tracking
+branches can be outdated. To update remote-tracking branches you
+either fetch and merge (or rebase) commits from the remote repository
+or update remote-tracking branches without updating local branches.
+
 
 Updating local and remote-tracking branches
 -------------------------------------------
 
+To update remote-tracking branches without updating local branches run
+``git remote update [$REMOTE...]``. For example::
+
+    $ git remote update
+    $ git remote update origin
+
+
+Fetch and pull
+''''''''''''''
+
 There is a major difference between
 
 ::
@@ -574,10 +592,10 @@ that it is very much recommended not to rebase published commits the
 question's diminished even further: "whether to use rebase on
 non-pushed commits?"
 
-That small question is for the team to decide. The author of the PEP
-recommends to use rebase when pulling, i.e. always do ``git pull
---rebase`` or even configure automatic setup of rebase for every new
-branch::
+That small question is for the team to decide. To preserve the beauty
+of linear history it's recommended to use rebase when pulling, i.e. do
+``git pull --rebase`` or even configure automatic setup of rebase for
+every new branch::
 
     $ git config branch.autosetuprebase always