+ $ cd ..
+ $ git clone hello hello-tracking
+ Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/hello-tracking/.git/
+ 0 blocks
+ $ cd hello-tracking
+ $ git pull ../my-hello
+ remote: Generating pack...
+ remote: Done counting 5 objects.
+ Result has 3 objects.
+ Deltifying 3 objects...
+ Unpacking 3 objects...
+ remote: 100% (3/3) done
+ Total 3 (delta 1), reused 0 (delta 0)
+ 100% (3/3) done
+ Updating a1a0e8b..839b58d
+ Fast forward
+ hello.c | 3 ++-
+ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
+
+It should be plain to see that the "git pull" command really did the
+combined sequence of "git fetch" and "git merge". Also, if you want to
+pull from the same repository you cloned from originally, (which is
+the common case for the upstream-tracking scenario), then "git pull"
+with no explicit repository is suffcient, and it will default to
+pulling from the same repository as the original clone.
+
+[XXX: The structure of the preceding section follows that of the
+original hgbook. But an alternate structure that arranged to pull from
+the originally cloned repository (as would be common) would allow for
+more straightforward use of git's features. For example, instead of
+the silly FETCH_HEAD stuff it would allow for "git fetch" and "git log
+master..origin" to be a very nice replacement for "hg
+incoming". Similarly, below, "git log origin..master" would make a
+nice replacement for "hg outgoing" which is something I didn't offer
+at all. One could also use git's remotes with the myriad repositories
+as used here, but it would require doing things like "git remote add
+<some-name> ../hello-pull" and that seems like a bit much to introduce
+for a turorial of this level. If nothing else, if the above section
+seems a little intimidating, understand that it's because things are
+not presented in the most natural "git way", (and I'm a little too
+tired to fix it tonight).]
+
+Note: Mercurial users who are reading this might wonder if there's a
+need for the equivalent of "hg update" after doing a "git pull". And
+the answer is no. Unlike mercurial, "git pull" and "git merge" will
+automatically update the workind-directory files as necessary.
+
+#### 2.8.2 Checking out previous revisions
+
+It's often useful to examine the working-tree state of some specific
+revision other than the tip of some branch. For example, maybe you
+would like to build a particular tagged version, or maybe you'd like
+to test the behavior of the code before a particular change was
+introduced. To do this, use "git checkout" and pass it the name of any
+revision, (with a branch name, a tag name, or any other commit
+identifier). For example, to examine our project before the original
+typo was introduced:
+
+ $ git checkout 0a633bf5
+ Note: moving to "0a633bf5" which isn't a local branch
+ If you want to create a new branch from this checkout, you may do so
+ (now or later) by using -b with the checkout command again. Example:
+ git checkout -b <new_branch_name>
+ HEAD is now at 0a633bf... Create a makefile
+
+The note that git gives us is to indicate that we are checking out a
+non-branch revision. This is perfectly fine if we are just exploring
+history, but if we actually wanted to use this revision as the basis
+for new commits, we would first have to create a new branch name as it
+describes.
+
+If we were to use "git checkout" with a branch name, then that would
+change the current branch, (meaning that any new commits would advance
+that branch pointer).
+
+For now, let's return back to the tip of the master branch by just
+checking it out again:
+
+ $ git checkout master
+ Previous HEAD position was 0a633bf... Create a makefile
+ Switched to branch "master"
projects / hgbook-git / blobdiff