Moderator Note: Given that this question has already had sixty-six answers posted to it, consider whether or not you are contributing anything new before posting another one.
What are the differences between git pull and git fetch?
In the simplest terms, git pull does a git fetch followed by a git merge.
You can do a git fetch at any time to update your remote-tracking branches under refs/remotes/<remote>/.
This operation never changes any of your own local branches under refs/heads, and is safe to do without changing your working copy. I have even heard of people running git fetch periodically in a cron job in the background (although I wouldn't recommend doing this).
A git pull is what you would do to bring a local branch up-to-date with its remote version, while also updating your other remote-tracking branches.
Git documentation: git pull
-
289"A "git pull" is what you would do to bring your repository up to date" <- isn't the repository update already done by fetch? don't you mean it brings your local branches up-to-date with the remote branches? To the merge: It merges the remote branches with your local copies of those branches, or what exactly does it merge here? – Albert Nov 10 '09 at 12:13
-
172@Albert: Yeah, it's weirdly worded.
git pullwill always merge into the current branch. So you select which branch you want to pull from, and it pulls it into the current branch. The from branch can be local or remote; it can even be a remote branch that's not a registeredgit remote(meaning you pass a URL on thegit pullcommand line). – intuited Jun 6 '10 at 10:10 -
113@espertus: No. Pushing never automatically does a merge. The user is expected to pull, resolving any merge conflicts locally, then push back to the remote. – Greg Hewgill Mar 17 '11 at 0:41
-
30If I am at
/home/alice/and dogit fetch /home/bob, what parameters should I pass to the subsequentgit merge? – ripper234 May 27 '11 at 19:38 -
87Note to people learning Git:
pullcan't actually be emulated by afetchplus amerge. I just fetched a change where only a remote branch pointer changes, andmergerefuses to do anything.pull, on the other hand, fast-forwards my tracking branch. – Roman Starkov Sep 28 '12 at 16:23
When you use
pull, Git tries to automatically do your work for you. It is context sensitive, so Git will merge any pulled commits into the branch you are currently working in.pullautomatically merges the commits without letting you review them first. If you don’t closely manage your branches, you may run into frequent conflicts.When you
fetch, Git gathers any commits from the target branch that do not exist in your current branch and stores them in your local repository. However, it does not merge them with your current branch. This is particularly useful if you need to keep your repository up to date, but are working on something that might break if you update your files. To integrate the commits into your master branch, you usemerge.
-
26Agreed, great comment. Which is why I hate git pull. When would it ever make sense to let a revision tool make code edits for you? And isn't that what merging two files is doing? What if those two edits are physically separated in the file, but LOGICALLY at odds? – Lee Dixon May 13 '13 at 18:44
-
95@elexhobby short put,
git fetchonly updates your.git/directory (AKA: local repository) and nothing outside.git/(AKA: working tree). It does not change your local branches, and it does not touchmastereither. It touchesremotes/origin/masterthough (seegit branch -avv). If you have more remotes, trygit remote update. This is agit fetchfor all remotes in one command. – Tino Jul 17 '13 at 6:48 -
17@Tino yours is really the most important point. People may not know that "remote" branches are actually stored as a bunch of hashes in
.git/refs/remotes/origin/. – Chris Sep 12 '13 at 21:49 -
8When you fetch, Git gathers any commits from the target branch that do not exist in your current branch and stores them in your local repository - how do I see what was brought from the remote and how do I merge it into my local branches? – アレックス Jun 13 '14 at 1:40
-
5@Tino What I still don't understand is... what's the point? Why use fetch if it only updates
.git? What is the intended benefit and what am I supposed to do after that? – BadHorsie Mar 23 '16 at 12:19
It is important to contrast the design philosophy of git with the philosophy of a more traditional source control tool like SVN.
Subversion was designed and built with a client/server model. There is a single repository that is the server, and several clients can fetch code from the server, work on it, then commit it back to the server. The assumption is that the client can always contact the server when it needs to perform an operation.
Git was designed to support a more distributed model with no need for a central repository (though you can certainly use one if you like). Also git was designed so that the client and the "server" don't need to be online at the same time. Git was designed so that people on an unreliable link could exchange code via email, even. It is possible to work completely disconnected and burn a CD to exchange code via git.
In order to support this model git maintains a local repository with your code and also an additional local repository that mirrors the state of the remote repository. By keeping a copy of the remote repository locally, git can figure out the changes needed even when the remote repository is not reachable. Later when you need to send the changes to someone else, git can transfer them as a set of changes from a point in time known to the remote repository.
git fetchis the command that says "bring my local copy of the remote repository up to date."git pullsays "bring the changes in the remote repository where I keep my own code."
Normally git pull does this by doing a git fetch to bring the local copy of the remote repository up to date, and then merging the changes into your own code repository and possibly your working copy.
The take away is to keep in mind that there are often at least three copies of a project on your workstation. One copy is your own repository with your own commit history. The second copy is your working copy where you are editing and building. The third copy is your local "cached" copy of a remote repository.
-
51Technically, the local and remote repositories are really one and the same. In Git, a repository is a DAG of commits pointing to their parents. Branches are, technically, nothing more than meaningful names of commits. The only difference between local and remote branches is that remote ones are prefixed with
remoteName/Git from the ground up is a very good read. Once you get an understanding of how Git works - and it's beautifully simple, really - everything just makes sense. – Emil Lundberg Aug 14 '13 at 9:51 -
8Thanks much for the explanation. I didn't really understand until now that Git was designed so you didn't have to have a central repository. Everyone always says "DVCS" when describing Git, but as a relatively new programmer, that means nothing to me. I've never seen a CVCS, and I've also never not worked with a cental remote repository when collaborating with others (i.e. Github), so until now I've yet to understand what made Git special. – Brian Peterson Aug 15 '13 at 2:17
-
4So, based on this, why ISN'T it a good idea to git-fetch with a cron job? Always keeping a copy of the remote you're working with on your local machine seems like a good idea. In fact, I feel like writing a script that checks to see if I've updated my remote in the past 24 hours and linking it up with a udev hook for internet connection. – Brian Peterson Aug 15 '13 at 2:23
-
15One reason why it ISN'T a good idea to have a cron job: often when working on either a new ticket, or on updates to a branch, I like to see the changes being fetched. If the changes don't come in during a fetch, I'll be more confident in asking my fellow programmer 'hey did you push?'. I also get a sense of how much 'churn' in the repository since I last fetched. This also help to give me sense of the amount and speed of changes currently being made to this repository. – Michael Durrant Jul 23 '14 at 11:47
-
2@Nabheet Thing is that, Git is content-oriented. It stores data only once, and points to it multiple times. That's why in Git, even multiple commits on top of an original don't affect the size of the repo much, since most of the objects are the same. – cst1992 Nov 5 '16 at 9:43
Here is Oliver Steele's image of how all it all fits together:
If there is sufficient interest, I suppose I could update the image to add git clone and git merge...
-
105
-
13Yes, please add
git merge- it should clearly show thatmergecalled separately is NOT the same as callingpullbecausepullis merging from remote only and ignores your local commits in your local branch which is tracking the remote branch being pulled from. – JustAMartin Oct 21 '15 at 19:57 -
7A picture is worth a thousand words! Is the updated image with clone and merge data flow ready somewhere? Any other data flow besides what's already in the diagram? – shikhanshu Nov 25 '15 at 0:27
-
7@Contango please add clone and merge. Would be helpful for newbies like me. – rents Jan 15 '16 at 16:02
-
7There are two diagrams showing clone and merge in other answers (below) by th3sly and thedarkpassenger. – intotecho Aug 12 '16 at 0:42
One use case of git fetch is that the following will tell you any changes in the remote branch since your last pull... so you can check before doing an actual pull, which could change files in your current branch and working copy.
git fetch
git diff ...origin
-
11
-
5
-
2git diff origin and git diff ..origin seem to work but not this weird ... stuff – Marc Jan 8 '13 at 19:32
-
13@Compustretch There was not supposed to be a space.
git diff ...originis equivalent togit diff $(git-merge-base HEAD origin) origin(see thegit diff [--options] <commit>...<commit> [--] [<path>…]section of kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-diff.html#_description), which is different fromgit diff origin;git diff ...originis conceptually the changes made inoriginsince the current branch branched fromorigin, whilegit diff originincludes also the reverse of the changes made in the current branch since it branched fromorigin. – Max Nanasy Aug 1 '13 at 19:34 -
1none of the .. commands worked for me (on Windows), but
git diff origin/masterworks, as mentioned below – Brian Burns Feb 20 '14 at 9:07
It cost me a little bit to understand what was the difference, but this is a simple explanation. master in your localhost is a branch.
When you clone a repository you fetch the entire repository to you local host. This means that at that time you have an origin/master pointer to HEAD and master pointing to the same HEAD.
when you start working and do commits you advance the master pointer to HEAD + your commits. But the origin/master pointer is still pointing to what it was when you cloned.
So the difference will be:
- If you do a
git fetchit will just fetch all the changes in the remote repository (GitHub) and move the origin/master pointer toHEAD. Meanwhile your local branch master will keep pointing to where it has. - If you do a
git pull, it will do basically fetch (as explained previously) and merge any new changes to your master branch and move the pointer toHEAD.
-
8origin/master is a local branch that is a COPY of master on origin. When you fetch, you update local:/origin/master. Once you really grok that everything in git is a branch, this makes a lot of sense and is a very powerful way to maintain different changesets, make quick local branches, merge and rebase, and generally get a lot of value out of the cheap branching model. – cam8001 May 28 '13 at 16:00
-
Still confusing. I thought
git fetchwas to literally download changes on the remote repo into your local repo, but NOT commit them - ie, they still need to be added/committed to your local repo. – krb686 Feb 26 '15 at 14:57 -
1fetch only pulls from remote/origin (github) to your local origin. But it doesn't merge it to your actual working files. if you do a pull it will fetch and the merge to your current working files – Gerardo Feb 26 '15 at 19:45
Sometimes a visual representation helps.
-
13I think the picture got to show that it affects the local repo too. That's is, Git pull is a combination of affecting the local repo and working copy. Right now it seems it just affect the working copy. – 太極者無極而生 Feb 14 '16 at 18:51
-
5@太極者無極而生 Agreed -- this image is pretty misleading, because it makes it look like
git pullis skipping the fetch, which of course is inaccurate. – forresthopkinsa Aug 20 '16 at 15:33 -
4@thedarkpassenger Why don't you update your image. Then, it will be best snap shot for newbies. ^^ – cmcromance Nov 8 '16 at 3:26
-
3whats a difference between a 'Local Repository' and a 'Working Copy'? Aren't they both local on the computer? – theITvideos Nov 16 '17 at 3:12
Briefly
git fetch is similar to pull but doesn't merge. i.e. it fetches remote updates (refs and objects) but your local stays the same (i.e. origin/master gets updated but master stays the same) .
git pull pulls down from a remote and instantly merges.
More
git clone clones a repo.
git rebase saves stuff from your current branch that isn't in the upstream branch to a temporary area. Your branch is now the same as before you started your changes. So, git pull -rebase will pull down the remote changes, rewind your local branch, replay your changes over the top of your current branch one by one until you're up-to-date.
Also, git branch -a will show you exactly what’s going on with all your branches - local and remote.
This blog post was useful:
The difference between git pull, git fetch and git clone (and git rebase) - Mike Pearce
and covers git pull, git fetch, git clone and git rebase.
====
UPDATE
I thought I'd update this to show how you'd actually use this in practice.
Update your local repo from the remote (but don't merge):
git fetch
After downloading the updates, let's see the differences:
git diff master origin/master
If you're happy with those updates, then merge:
git pull
Notes:
On step 2: For more on diffs between local and remotes, see: compare local git branch with remote branch?
On step 3: It's probably more accurate (e.g. on a fast changing repo) to do a git rebase origin here. See @Justin Ohms comment in another answer.
See also: http://longair.net/blog/2009/04/16/git-fetch-and-merge/
-
1Sounds to me like if someone just wants the local code to reflect "the tip", they should use
git clone. I put the tip in quotes, as I assume it would mean whatever master is and what someone would "Download as zip" from github.com – Chris K Sep 12 '13 at 8:27 -
2what if you're not happy with the changes after you git fetch? what to do next? – Kugutsumen Mar 24 '15 at 6:06
-
Your paragraph on rebase was just what I was looking for. The whole idea about zeroing out of everything, updating from remote, then replaying your changes on top of previous commits that happened while you were working. Perfect explanation assuming it's correct. ;) – coblr Mar 3 '16 at 0:01
git-pull - Fetch from and merge with another repository or a local branch SYNOPSIS git pull … DESCRIPTION Runs git-fetch with the given parameters, and calls git-merge to merge the retrieved head(s) into the current branch. With --rebase, calls git-rebase instead of git-merge. Note that you can use . (current directory) as the <repository> to pull from the local repository — this is useful when merging local branches into the current branch. Also note that options meant for git-pull itself and underlying git-merge must be given before the options meant for git-fetch.
You would pull if you want the histories merged, you'd fetch if you just 'want the codez' as some person has been tagging some articles around here.
-
4Very interesting, but I can't really see a use case where you want "just the code". Et what happen with your code when you fetch? Is it erased? What happen whith the remote changes? How does it goes into your repo whithout erasing your code if you don't merge? – e-satis Mar 27 '10 at 16:21
-
10@e-satis: The remote branch is also stored locally on your machine. So when you do
git fetchit fetches changes from the repository and updates your local remote branch. It does not affect your local branch which tracks the local remote branch, so does not affect your working copy. Now, when you do amergeit will merge the fetched changes with your local branch. – jeffreyveon Oct 31 '11 at 4:23 -
A simple use case for the fetch command: perform time consuming operations involving other people's recent commits, such as a merge or a code review, accessing only your up-to-date local repository without network connectivity requirements, because you previously used fetch to download everything you need quickly (e.g. while you are visiting some other developer and connected to some other repository's network). The pull command would download the same commits, but the merging it performs can be undesirable. – Lorenzo Gatti Sep 19 '13 at 10:25
You can fetch from a remote repository, see the differences and then pull or merge.
This is an example for a remote repository called origin and a branch called master tracking the remote branch origin/master:
git checkout master
git fetch
git diff origin/master
git rebase origin master
-
32You probably want to skip the pull and just do a "git rebase origin" as the last step since you already fetched the changes. The reason is that someone could have pushed changes in the time since you did the fetch and these would not have been in fetch that you did the diff review on. – Justin Ohms Aug 31 '12 at 20:02
The short and easy answer is that git pull is simply git fetch followed by git merge.
It is very important to note that git pull will automatically merge whether you like it or not. This could, of course, result in merge conflicts. Let's say your remote is origin and your branch is master. If you git diff origin/master before pulling, you should have some idea of potential merge conflicts and could prepare your local branch accordingly.
In addition to pulling and pushing, some workflows involve git rebase, such as this one, which I paraphrase from the linked article:
git pull origin master
git checkout foo-branch
git rebase master
git push origin foo-branch
If you find yourself in such a situation, you may be tempted to git pull --rebase. Unless you really, really know what you are doing, I would advise against that. This warning is from the man page for git-pull, version 2.3.5:
This is a potentially dangerous mode of operation. It rewrites history, which does not bode well when you published that history already. Do not use this option unless you have read git-rebase(1) carefully.
-
2@JustinOhms If
git pull --rebaseis not the right thing in the given situation, is it right if it is done in two steps? If it is the right thing to do, what is extra the benefit to doing it in two steps? – Kaz May 23 '13 at 21:56 -
@Kaz - because the rebase is not automatic. Fetching the changes first allows you to make the judgement call. It doesn't fix the problem with rebasing history you've already pushed. It will allow you to see if it is safe to rebase changes you have not already pushed. – Justin Ohms May 24 '13 at 21:11
-
2@JustinOhms How would you decide whether it is safe to rebase changes? I would just try git rebase, and backtrack if it made a mess, in which case I might as well do git pull --rebase. But maybe you have some other way? – Kaz May 25 '13 at 6:14
-
1@KaZ gitk allows you to see the branch structure visually. It will show your the position of your local head, remotes, and your branch structures in relation to what you have fetched. This way you can ensure that you are not rebasing fetched changes that are based on an ancestor that is prior to what you have already pushed to your remote(s). – Justin Ohms May 28 '13 at 19:18
-
Use
rebasewhen you are working on a local branch not already pushed. If you are working on a branch that exists in the remote,rebasecan result in some nasty issues so you should prefer a regularmerge. – Justus Romijn Dec 1 '14 at 8:39
Bonus:
In speaking of pull & fetch in the above answers, I would like to share an interesting trick,
git pull --rebase
This above command is the most useful command in my git life which saved a lots of time.
Before pushing your new commits to server, try this command and it will automatically sync latest server changes (with a fetch + merge) and will place your commit at the top in git log. No need to worry about manual pull/merge.
Find details at: http://gitolite.com/git-pull--rebase
-
3Nice tip, though it's worth mentioning to new git users that rebase modifies commit hashes (I found that surprising coming from subversion). – AlexMA Sep 20 '16 at 12:57
-
This interactive graphical representation is very helpful in understanging git: http://ndpsoftware.com/git-cheatsheet.html
git fetch just "downloads" the changes from the remote to your local repository. git pull downloads the changes and merges them into your current branch. "In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by git merge FETCH_HEAD."
-
13People, click on the link to interact with the different columns. This cheatsheet is the best resource I've seen to fully understand the differences between each command. – María Luisa Carrión Donderis Oct 4 '16 at 0:41
I like to have some visual representation of the situation to grasp these things. Maybe other developers would like to see it too, so here's my addition. I'm not totally sure that it all is correct, so please comment if you find any mistakes.
LOCAL SYSTEM
. =====================================================
================= . ================= =================== =============
REMOTE REPOSITORY . REMOTE REPOSITORY LOCAL REPOSITORY WORKING COPY
(ORIGIN) . (CACHED)
for example, . mirror of the
a github repo. . remote repo
Can also be .
multiple repo's .
.
.
FETCH *------------------>*
Your local cache of the remote is updated with the origin (or multiple
external sources, that is git's distributed nature)
.
PULL *-------------------------------------------------------->*
changes are merged directly into your local copy. when conflicts occur,
you are asked for decisions.
.
COMMIT . *<---------------*
When coming from, for example, subversion, you might think that a commit
will update the origin. In git, a commit is only done to your local repo.
.
PUSH *<---------------------------------------*
Synchronizes your changes back into the origin.
Some major advantages for having a fetched mirror of the remote are:
- Performance (scroll through all commits and messages without trying to squeeze it through the network)
- Feedback about the state of your local repo (for example, I use Atlassian's SourceTree, which will give me a bulb indicating if I'm commits ahead or behind compared to the origin. This information can be updated with a GIT FETCH).
-
Doesn't a
git pullalso perform a merge, i.e. going all the way to the working copy? – Kamiel Wanrooij Mar 24 '14 at 17:28 -
Good point, yes it will put all the changes in your working copy, and then you can commit it yourself into the local repo. I will update the visual. – Justus Romijn Mar 25 '14 at 7:50
-
@JustusRomijn Doesn't a pull also update the local repository? Shouldn't there be an asterisk between the origin and working copy asterisks? – user764754 Jan 8 '15 at 9:34
-
1@user764754 When you pull, your working copy get the changes (there can also be some conflicts which you might need to resolve). You still have to commit it into your local repository. – Justus Romijn Jan 12 '15 at 7:17
-
@JustusRomijn:Thanks for the illustration.It would be great if you can make the diagram more comprehensive by illustrating the effects of operations such as reset ,cherry pick on the repository states. – jith912 Jan 17 '15 at 12:42
I have struggled with this as well. In fact I got here with a google search of exactly the same question. Reading all these answers finally painted a picture in my head and I decided to try to get this down looking at the state of the 2 repositories and 1 sandbox and actions performed over time while watching the version of them. So here is what I came up with. Please correct me if I messed up anywhere.
The three repos with a fetch:
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
- Remote Repo - - Remote Repo - - Remote Repo -
- - - gets pushed - - -
- @ R01 - - @ R02 - - @ R02 -
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
- Local Repo - - Local Repo - - Local Repo -
- pull - - - - fetch -
- @ R01 - - @ R01 - - @ R02 -
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
- Local Sandbox - - Local Sandbox - - Local Sandbox -
- Checkout - - new work done - - -
- @ R01 - - @ R01+ - - @R01+ -
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
The three repos with a pull
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
- Remote Repo - - Remote Repo - - Remote Repo -
- - - gets pushed - - -
- @ R01 - - @ R02 - - @ R02 -
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
- Local Repo - - Local Repo - - Local Repo -
- pull - - - - pull -
- @ R01 - - @ R01 - - @ R02 -
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
- Local Sandbox - - Local Sandbox - - Local Sandbox -
- Checkout - - new work done - - merged with R02 -
- @ R01 - - @ R01+ - - @R02+ -
--------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
This helped me understand why a fetch is pretty important.
-
18Unfortunately, I have no idea what this diagram is supposed to show... – BadHorsie Mar 23 '16 at 12:16
-
Not that hard to read: the boxes represent the status of a repo, that in each row changes in time left-to-right after the reported operation in row 2 of the box. The labels R0n are tags in git, and a tag with a + is yet uncommited stuff. Sanbox is used for your working folder, which is different from the repo folder, where commited stuff is stored. – user1708042 Aug 30 '17 at 7:57
OK, here are some information about git pull and git fetch, so you can understand the actual differences... in few simple words, fetch gets the latest data, but not the code changes and not going to mess with your current code, but pull get the code changes and merge it your local branch, read on to get more details about each:
git fetch
It will download all refs and objects and any new branches to your local Repository...
Fetch branches and/or tags (collectively, "refs") from one or more other repositories, along with the objects necessary to complete their histories. Remote-tracking branches are updated (see the description of below for ways to control this behavior).
By default, any tag that points into the histories being fetched is also fetched; the effect is to fetch tags that point at branches that you are interested in. This default behavior can be changed by using the --tags or --no-tags options or by configuring remote..tagOpt. By using a refspec that fetches tags explicitly, you can fetch tags that do not point into branches you are interested in as well.
git fetch can fetch from either a single named repository or URL, or from several repositories at once if is given and there is a remotes. entry in the configuration file. (See git-config1).
When no remote is specified, by default the origin remote will be used, unless there’s an upstream branch configured for the current branch.
The names of refs that are fetched, together with the object names they point at, are written to .git/FETCH_HEAD. This information may be used by scripts or other git commands, such as git-pull.
git pull
It will apply the changes from remote to the current branch in local...
Incorporates changes from a remote repository into the current branch. In its default mode, git pull is shorthand for git fetch followed by git merge FETCH_HEAD.
More precisely, git pull runs git fetch with the given parameters and calls git merge to merge the retrieved branch heads into the current branch. With --rebase, it runs git rebase instead of git merge.
should be the name of a remote repository as passed to git-fetch1. 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/:refs/remotes/origin/), but usually it is the name of a branch in the remote repository.
Default values for and are read from the "remote" and "merge" configuration for the current branch as set by git-branch --track.
I also create the visual below to show you how git fetch and git pull working together...
-
OK, @Vishal, it's meaning it will change both, I update the image to avoid confusion... Hope this can help more people... – Alireza Jul 22 '17 at 18:13
-
11
-
1If you like the image then take a look at the git cheat sheet, which is the same sort of things for all git commands... ndpsoftware.com/git-cheatsheet.html – Tom May 20 at 16:42
-
Doesn't clone also affect the local repository (copying all the history from remote)? – Tom Loredo Jul 4 at 4:38
The Difference between GIT Fetch and GIT Pull can be explained with the following scenario: (Keeping in mind that pictures speak louder than words!, I have provided pictorial representation)
Let's take an example that you are working on a project with your team members. So their will be one main Branch of the project and all the contributors must fork it to their own local repository and then work on this local branch to modify/Add modules then push back to the main branch.
So,
Initial State of the two Branches when you forked the main project on your local repository will be like this- (A, B and C are Modules already completed of the project)
Now, you have started working on the new module (suppose D) and when you have completed the D module you want to push it to the main branch, But meanwhile what happens is that one of your teammates has developed new Module E, F and modified C.
So now what has happened is that your local repository is lacking behind the original progress of the project and thus pushing of your changes to main branch can lead to conflict and may cause your Module D to malfunction.
To avoid such issues and to work parallel with the original progress of the project their are Two ways:
1. Git Fetch- This will Download all the changes that have been made to the origin/main branch project which are not present in your local branch. And will wait for the Git Merge command to apply the changes that have been fetched to your Repository or branch.
So now You can carefully monitor the files before merging it to your repository. And you can also modify D if required because of Modified C.
2. Git Pull- This will update your local branch with the origin/main branch i.e. actually what it does is combination of Git Fetch and Git merge one after another. But this may Cause Conflicts to occur, so it’s recommended to use Git Pull with a clean copy.
-
1
-
if you could change 'Main Branch' to 'Remote Repo', it would be a great answer. – hikaru89 Jun 4 at 0:17
We simply say:
git pull == git fetch + git merge
If you run git pull, you do not need to merge the data to local. If you run git fetch, it means you must run git merge for getting the latest code to your local machine. Otherwise, the local machine code would not be changed without merge.
So in the Git Gui, when you do fetch, you have to merge the data. Fetch itself won't make the code changes at your local. You can check that when you update the code by fetching once fetch and see; the code it won't change. Then you merge... You will see the changed code.
-
2
-
1
git fetch pulls down the code from the remote server to your tracking branches in your local repository. If your remote is named origin (the default) then these branches will be within origin/, for example origin/master, origin/mybranch-123, etc. These are not your current branches, they are local copies of those branches from the server.
git pull does a git fetch but then also merges the code from the tracking branch into your current local version of that branch. If you're not ready for that changes yet, just git fetch first.
git fetch will retrieve remote branches so that you can git diff or git merge them with the current branch. git pull will run fetch on the remote brach tracked by the current branch and then merge the result. You can use git fetch to see if there are any updates to the remote branch without necessary merging them with your local branch.
Git Fetch
You download changes to your local branch from origin through fetch. Fetch asks the remote repo for all commits that others have made but you don't have on your local repo. Fetch downloads these commits and adds them to the local repository.
Git Merge
You can apply changes downloaded through fetch using the merge command. Merge will take the commits retrieved from fetch and try to add them to your local branch. The merge will keep the commit history of your local changes so that when you share your branch with push, Git will know how others can merge your changes.
Git Pull
Fetch and merge run together often enough that a command that combines the two, pull, was created. Pull does a fetch and then a merge to add the downloaded commits into your local branch.
The only difference between git pull and git fetch is that :
git pull pulls from a remote branch and merges it.
git fetch only fetches from the remote branch but it does not merge
i.e. git pull = git fetch + git merge ...
-
And neither help if git thinks you are behind by commits and can "fast-forward", which upon I ended up
rm -rfing the whole thing and starting over. Stupid Git, please just let me get current so I can go back to work? – Chris K Sep 11 '13 at 22:01
Git allows chronologically older commits to be applied after newer commits. Because of this, the act of transferring commits between repositories is split into two steps:
Copying new commits from remote branch to copy of this remote branch inside local repo.
(repo to repo operation)
master@remote >> remote/origin/master@localIntegrating new commits to local branch
(inside-repo operation)
remote/origin/master@local >> master@local
There are two ways of doing step 2. You can:
- Fork local branch after last common ancestor and add new commits parallel to commits which are unique to local repository, finalized by merging commit, closing the fork.
- Insert new commits after last common ancestor and reapply commits unique to local repository.
In git terminology, step 1 is git fetch, step 2 is git merge or git rebase
git pull is git fetch and git merge
What is the difference between
git pullandgit fetch?
To understand this, you first need to understand that your local git maintains not only your local repository, but it also maintains a local copy of the remote repository.
git fetch brings your local copy of the remote repository up to date. For example, if your remote repository is GitHub - you may want to fetch any changes made in the remote repository to your local copy of it the remote repository. This will allow you to perform operations such as compare or merge.
git pull on the other hand will bring down the changes in the remote repository to where you keep your own code. Typically, git pull will do a git fetch first to bring the local copy of the remote repository up to date, and then it will merge the changes into your own code repository and possibly your working copy.
Git obtains the branch of the latest version from the remote to the local using two commands:
git fetch: Git is going to get the latest version from remote to local, but it do not automatically merge.
git fetch origin mastergit log -p master..origin/mastergit merge origin/masterThe commands above mean that download latest version of the main branch from origin from the remote to origin master branch. And then compares the local master branch and origin master branch. Finally, merge.
git pull: Git is going to get the latest version from the remote and merge into the local.
git pull origin masterThe command above is the equivalent to
git fetchandgit merge. In practice,git fetchmaybe more secure because before the merge we can see the changes and decide whether to merge.
git pull == ( git fetch + git merge)
git fetch does not changes to local branches.
If you already have a local repository with a remote set up for the desired project, you can grab all branches and tags for the existing remote using git fetch . ... Fetch does not make any changes to local branches, so you will need to merge a remote branch with a paired local branch to incorporate newly fetch changes. from github
-
Guys, I still don't understand it. So can we skip
git fetchand usegit pulldirectly? The reason is thatgit pullalready includesgit fetch. – user1108948 Apr 7 '15 at 17:13
Trying to be clear and simple.
The git pull command is actually a shortcut for git fetch followed by the git merge or the git rebase command depending on your configuration. You can configure your Git repository so that git pull is a fetch followed by a rebase.
Actually Git maintains a copy of your own code and the remote repository.
The command git fetch makes your local copy up to date by getting data from remote repository. The reason we need this is because somebody else might have made some changes to the code and you want to keep yourself updated.
The command git pull brings the changes in the remote repository to where you keep your own code. Normally, git pull does this by doing a ‘git fetch’ first to bring the local copy of the remote repository up to date, and then it merges the changes into your own code repository and possibly your working copy.
git pull = git fetch + git merge
From Pro Git § 2.5 Git Basics - Working with Remotes: Fetching and Pulling from Your Remotes:
It’s important to note that the
fetchcommand pulls the data to your local repository — it doesn’t automatically merge it with any of your work or modify what you’re currently working on. You have to merge it manually into your work when you’re ready.If you have a branch set up to track a remote branch, you can use the
git pullcommand to automatically fetch and then merge a remote branch into your current branch. This may be an easier or more comfortable workflow for you; and by default, thegit clonecommand automatically sets up your local master branch to track the remote master branch on the server you cloned from (assuming the remote has a master branch). Runninggit pullgenerally fetches data from the server you originally cloned from and automatically tries to merge it into the code you’re currently working on.
protected by Brad Larson♦ Mar 10 '13 at 1:30
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
git fetch; git reset --hard origin/masteras part of our workflow. It blows away local changes, keeps you up to date with master BUT makes sure you don't just pull in new changes on top on current changes and make a mess. We've used it for a while and it basically feels a lot safer in practice. Just be sure to add/commit/stash any work-in-progress first ! – Michael Durrant May 4 '14 at 14:32