How to force the checkout of the latest revision from a remote server?

I have repository on GitHub to which I commit regularly from my local computer. On the other side I have server pulling from the repository. The web server just executes a git pull in order to get the latest changes from the GitHub repository. This is completely automated and should stay that way (solutions like the Ruby Tool Capistrano are out).

A simple git pull usually works just fine. However, sometimes I change the last commit (git commit --amend) and git push the changes twice to GitHub. If the server auto-updated it's code between the two pushes to GitHub, the next server side git pull fails because there is merge conflict.

To solve this problem I need the following behavior: The server should continue to git pull (or something equivalent) the GitHub repository but in case of a merge conflict, the GitHub repository should just take precedence over the local repository on the server. So, I want a git command that behaves like git clone, but doesn't copy the whole repository every single time.

I know, but I guess it doesn't matter since I'm currently the only user of that remote repository.

Christoph Schiessl 2009-09-03 13:16:33

But now you see it does matter. Because the other computer is also a user. But now that you put the question this way — does it mean that you're asking how to resync it once?

Michael Krelin - hacker 2009-09-03 13:19:10

There's nothing wrong with amending commits if only one *person* is working with the repositories (no matter how many repos there are). Unless that person is concerned about confusing him/herself, they can always do checkouts, resets, or forced updates to get multiple repos back in sync.

Dan Moulding 2009-09-03 13:40:07

Dan, this question exactly demonstrates what's wrong with amending commits in one-man-repo. Exactly confusing the hell out of himself and his computers ;-). I'd say *there's nothing wrong with amending commits as long as you are aware of implications and are ready to deal with them*.

Michael Krelin - hacker 2009-09-03 13:42:31

Give a man a fish, or teach him to fish? Telling him not to amend his commits is like giving him the fish... I'd rather he learn :)

Dan Moulding 2009-09-03 13:46:42

@hacker: The real danger I see with amending commits is with amending a commit that someone else has begun using as a base upon which to do their own work. That will certainly lead to a confusing situation that will require careful attention and merging. But if you're working alone, this usually won't be a problem.

Dan Moulding 2009-09-03 13:50:28

I think it's cleaner to use amend sometimes, and when you are working alone there is no problem. I understand that it could be problem if are working with a team or in an Open Source environment, but that's not the case here. A clean history is worth something too, right? The reason I use amend is that I don't want to have extra commits just to fix a misspelled comment in the source code.

Christoph Schiessl 2009-09-03 13:57:40

Dan, it takes time to learn to fish and it hard to go this route hungry ;-)Christoph, it is cleaner to use amend, but you should normally have enough time for amendments before the code leaves your repository.But then again — as long as you know how to deal with it, it's just fine and you're the one to decide whether you do or don't want to amend.

Michael Krelin - hacker 2009-09-03 14:01:15

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

How to force the checkout of the latest revision from a remote server?

related questions