Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on Is `git pull` dangerous?

Parent

Is `git pull` dangerous?

+4
−2

I heard git pull is dangerous.

  • Is it really dangerous?

  • If so, why or how is it dangerous?

  • Are there any flags that mitigate or remove the danger?

  • What are the alternatives if it is dangerous?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Unclear (3 comments)
Post
+4
−3

git pull is dangerous, but not a security problem. The only danger is that it's difficult or inconvenient (but not impossible) to recover to the state prior to the pull, if it would be necessary.


Merge commits

The remote branch might have diverged from your own, in which case git will automatically try to resolve any conflicts with a merge commit. This might result in bad conflict resolutions (although that's rare).

This can be solved by running git pull --ff-only instead, which will only merge the origin changes if your local branch can be fast-forwarded (no merge commits).

If there are any local changes not in the remote branch, the pull will fail, and you'll be able to resolve the situation with a different method.

However, this solution doesn't solve the other problems of git-pull(1), so continue reading.


Predictability

git-pull(1) performs two operations:

  • download the latest branch from the remote
  • merge it to the local branch

But you can't predict what's in the remote branch. This means that your local branch will blindly jump to whatever commit the remote branch is in (assuming git pull --ff-only, and that your local branch has no changes).

You won't know where your branch was prior to the jump, unless you wrote the old commit hash somewhere. If after the pull you find out that you don't like the changes and want to go back to the old state, it will be hard to know where you were. (Imagine for example that the remote could have been hacked, and malicious contents could have been introduced in the branch.)

git-pull(1) has no way to mitigate this, since it's a problem inherent to the fact that git-pull(1) performs two operations.

The solution is to run two commands to perform those operations separately:

  • git fetch origin
  • git merge --ff-only origin/master

Between the fetch and the merge, you can print a graph of the log, to analyze what will be merged:

$ git fetch origin
$ git log --all --graph --oneline
$ git merge --ff-only origin/master  # or rebase, or whatever you need; you already know what you're merging.  :)

Printing the log graph in the terminal will also let you have all the commit hashes written, in case you make any mistakes and need to go back to the original state (git reset <old-master> --hard) and start again.

This approach allows you to review all of the remote commits before merging them into any local branch.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

3 comment threads

Losing old HEAD is not unpredictable (9 comments)
Unfamiliar notation (7 comments)
Use config rather than command-line flags (4 comments)
Use config rather than command-line flags
Derek Elkins‭ wrote 2 months ago

This first piece of advice doesn't make sense given the "danger". The correct advice would be to set the pull.ff and/or merge.ff config to only rather than use --ff-only all the time.

alx‭ wrote 2 months ago

Since I advocate against git-pull(1) at all (I never ever use it, for the second reason), I think recommending a config for it could be counter-productive.

alx‭ wrote 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

For merge, I prefer to specifically ask for a fast-forward. Having merge.ff = only could give surprises when I work in a different system.

I use the following alias for fast-forwarding merges:

[alias]
	ff = merge --ff-only

So that I run git ff <commit>

matthewsnyder‭ wrote about 2 months ago · edited about 2 months ago

Since the general pattern with git is that most CLI flags have a config equivalent (with matching name) this seems like an unnecessary tangent. If someone really wants to know, they can post a new question "How can I make git pull always do --ff-only?".