I'm trying to learn branches in git, and one bit of advice I've heard,
from the one video that's been most helpful to me, is that "merging
locally isn't normally done; instead, changes are pushed and a pull
request is made."  So I did that, and now my GitHub repo is up-to-date.
GitHub also assured me that I could delete the branch, so I did that.

But now, I've still got 2 local branches, and my local main[*] does not
have the changes from the branch.  How do I update the local main if I'm
not supposed to merge locally?

I have both branches backed up locally, because frankly I don't know
what I'm doing, and I've corrupted repos before and had to git init or
git clone from scratch.  It's a hassle maintaining both git and manual
systems in parallel, but at least I know I won't lose everything on my
next git stumble.

I've been using git for 4 years now, in part on the promise that it will
make my life easier.  How can that happen when, after 4 years, this
software is still utter black magic to me?

[*]"master" using the old terminology.

Post a reply to this message

On 2026-01-01 12:00 (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
> 
> But now, I've still got 2 local branches, and my local main does not
> have the changes from the branch.  How do I update the local main if I'm
> not supposed to merge locally?

I think I figured it out.  You're suppose to do a pull from GitHub after
you've done the pull request from the branch, right?

git checkout main
git pull origin main

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2026-01-01 12:00 (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
> >
> > But now, I've still got 2 local branches, and my local main does not
> > have the changes from the branch.  How do I update the local main if I'm
> > not supposed to merge locally?
>
> I think I figured it out.  You're suppose to do a pull from GitHub after
> you've done the pull request from the branch, right?
>
> git checkout main
> git pull origin main

Yes, once the remote branch is merged into main, you pull main so you have the
changes locally. You can then branch from that going forwards. You can
(optionally) delete the local branch too at that point - any further changes are
best done via a new branch and PR.

I use git for work daily; I'm no wizard but I have a somewhat intuitive feel for
my usual workflow now. I rarely get tangled up any more, and there's endless
examples and tutorials to be googled for help if I do. I remember when I first
started using it, there really was the feeling that I was just reciting
incantations with no obvious connection to reality :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I'm trying to learn branches in git, and one bit of advice I've heard,
> from the one video that's been most helpful to me, is that "merging
> locally isn't normally done; instead, changes are pushed and a pull
> request is made."  So I did that, and now my GitHub repo is up-to-date.
> GitHub also assured me that I could delete the branch, so I did that.
>
> But now, I've still got 2 local branches, and my local main[*] does not
> have the changes from the branch.  How do I update the local main if I'm
> not supposed to merge locally?
>
> I have both branches backed up locally, because frankly I don't know
> what I'm doing, and I've corrupted repos before and had to git init or
> git clone from scratch.  It's a hassle maintaining both git and manual
> systems in parallel, but at least I know I won't lose everything on my
> next git stumble.
>
> I've been using git for 4 years now, in part on the promise that it will
> make my life easier.  How can that happen when, after 4 years, this
> software is still utter black magic to me?
>
> [*]"master" using the old terminology.

If you aren't merging into a shared branch (i.e., if you're the only one working
on a project and you aren't updating two branches at once), I wouldn't give it a
second thought. The main idea is to avoid merge commits (which you can easily
end up with anyway if you accept a pr), but you won't have merge commits as a
single user if you

- git checkout some-branch (or) git checkout -b some-new-branch
- make come commits, decide you want to keep them
- git checkout main
- git merge some-branch

The only thing branching is giving you here is a "save point" in case you want
to discard an entire feature. Git, like many things, is as hard as you want to
make it.
-

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > I'm trying to learn branches in git, and one bit of advice I've heard,
> > from the one video that's been most helpful to me, is that "merging
> > locally isn't normally done; instead, changes are pushed and a pull
> > request is made."  So I did that, and now my GitHub repo is up-to-date.
> > GitHub also assured me that I could delete the branch, so I did that.
> >
> > But now, I've still got 2 local branches, and my local main[*] does not
> > have the changes from the branch.  How do I update the local main if I'm
> > not supposed to merge locally?
> >
> > I have both branches backed up locally, because frankly I don't know
> > what I'm doing, and I've corrupted repos before and had to git init or
> > git clone from scratch.  It's a hassle maintaining both git and manual
> > systems in parallel, but at least I know I won't lose everything on my
> > next git stumble.
> >
> > I've been using git for 4 years now, in part on the promise that it will
> > make my life easier.  How can that happen when, after 4 years, this
> > software is still utter black magic to me?
> >
> > [*]"master" using the old terminology.
>
> If you aren't merging into a shared branch (i.e., if you're the only one working
> on a project and you aren't updating two branches at once), I wouldn't give it a
> second thought. The main idea is to avoid merge commits (which you can easily
> end up with anyway if you accept a pr), but you won't have merge commits as a
> single user if you
>
> - git checkout some-branch (or) git checkout -b some-new-branch
> - make come commits, decide you want to keep them
> - git checkout main
> - git merge some-branch
>
> The only thing branching is giving you here is a "save point" in case you want
> to discard an entire feature. Git, like many things, is as hard as you want to
> make it.
> -

Hi, I don't know how far you've been in the journey to try and make sense of
(g)it...

a)Did you read ProGit the free ebook?
https://git-scm.com/book/fr/v2

b)Does this video tutorial help for your specific question?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ala6PHlYjmw

Post a reply to this message

On 2026-01-13 18:29 (-4), Shay wrote:
> The only thing branching is giving you here is a "save point" in case you want
> to discard an entire feature. Git, like many things, is as hard as you want to
> make it.

What if I don't want to make it hard, and it's hard anyway?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/26 09:56 (-4), Mr wrote:
> 
> Hi, I don't know how far you've been in the journey to try and make sense of
> (g)it...

A little over 4 years, and not very far.

> a)Did you read ProGit the free ebook?
> https://git-scm.com/book/fr/v2

My eyes are glazing over, and my head is in a fog.

> b)Does this video tutorial help for your specific question?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ala6PHlYjmw

The video's "uncomfortable truth" has been blaringly obvious to me from
the start.  After 4 years, it seems clear that I still have no idea
what's going on.  *watches video*  I think I'm even more confused than I
was before.  I think.

I remember once having a detached head.  I had no idea what that meant
at the time, or what I did to detach it.  (I ended up deleting the
repository and restarting from scratch.)  Now I have some vague idea,
but I can't explain that idea to myself, and it's probably wrong anyway.

Post a reply to this message

On 2026-01-13 18:29 (-4), Shay wrote:
> 
> If you aren't merging into a shared branch (i.e., if you're the only one working
> on a project and you aren't updating two branches at once), I wouldn't give it a
> second thought. The main idea is to avoid merge commits (which you can easily
> end up with anyway if you accept a pr), but you won't have merge commits as a
> single user if you [...]

At some point I'll want to git clone POV-Ray and submit pull requests.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2026-01-13 18:29 (-4), Shay wrote:
> > The only thing branching is giving you here is a "save point" in case you want
> > to discard an entire feature. Git, like many things, is as hard as you want to
> > make it.
>
> What if I don't want to make it hard, and it's hard anyway?



use the parts *you* need, because you may never use the parts you imagine you
*might* need, even if you *do* become advanced.



able to code. Submit a request for typos in the README if you like. That is
straightforward, done the same way by thousands, clearly documented online, and
a way to use tools for the exact purpose they were designed.

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > On 2026-01-13 18:29 (-4), Shay wrote:
> > > The only thing branching is giving you here is a "save point" in case you want
> > > to discard an entire feature. Git, like many things, is as hard as you want to
> > > make it.
> >
> > What if I don't want to make it hard, and it's hard anyway?
>
>
>
> use the parts *you* need, because you may never use the parts you imagine you
> *might* need, even if you *do* become advanced.
>
>
>
> able to code. Submit a request for typos in the README if you like. That is
> straightforward, done the same way by thousands, clearly documented online, and
> a way to use tools for the exact purpose they were designed.

Yes, Consider it a scaffolding over which you do not HAVE to walk... but COULD
once people responsible for it will lead you by the hand... one floor at a
time... meanwhile you are allowed to walk beneath remote admins, and Git does
provide you some safer space, no matter how intimidating its shadow is above
your head :-P  Here is an example : Instead of branches, you could have just
used "stash" for now, which I find simpler because of its being local.

Post a reply to this message