Question on git and dev process

[Kevin Van Horn]

I'm not very experienced with git -- my experience has been with Subversion, and CVS before that, and RCS (!) before that -- and so I have a question about the discussion under section 4, "How to Contribute with a Clone of the Repository" on the Developer-Process page of the wiki. It says,

"For a new feature, checkout develop and get up to date.

> git pull
> git checkout develop
> git pull
> git checkout -b feature/foo
> git push -u origin feature/foo
"

I understand the second "git pull", that comes after "git checkout develop", but why is the first "git pull" there?

[Bob Carpenter]

On 1/27/14, 2:07 AM, Kevin Van Horn wrote:
> I'm not very experienced with git -- my experience has been with Subversion, and CVS before that, and RCS (!) before that -- and so I have a question about the discussion under section 4, "How to Contribute with a Clone of the Repository" on the Developer-Process page of the wiki. It says,

We started on Subversion under Google Code and then moved
to Git after Ben urged us to do so (as did everyone else
who worked on bigger projects).

>
> "For a new feature, checkout develop and get up to date.
>
>> git pull
>> git checkout develop
>> git pull
>> git checkout -b feature/foo
>> git push -u origin feature/foo
> "
>
> I understand the second "git pull", that comes after "git checkout develop", but why is the first "git pull" there?

Git's great, but it also confuses me about what's going to
update what. I just removed the first "git pull", which I
added when Daniel and I were updating the instructions for
hotfixes.

Now I'm not sure you need both the "git pull" in the hotfix
instructions. Ben?

- Bob

[Ben Goodrich]

I think the first git pull would be unnecessary but doesn't do any harm.

Ben