remote: don't imply that integration is always required before pushing

In a narrow but common case, the user is the only author of a branch and
doesn't mind overwriting the corresponding branch on the remote. This
workflow is especially common on GitHub, GitLab, and Gerrit, which keep
a permanent record of every version of a branch that is pushed while a
pull request is open for that branch. On those platforms, force-pushing
is encouraged and is analogous to emailing a new version of a patchset.

When giving advice about divergent branches, tell the user about
`git pull`, but don't unconditionally instruct the user to do it. A less
prescriptive message will help prevent users from thinking that they are
required to create an integrated history instead of simply replacing the
previous history. Likewise, don't imply that `git pull` is only for
merging.

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
index d79aae0d76..71019564d5 100644
--- a/remote.c
+++ b/remote.c
@@ -2325,7 +2325,7 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb,
 		if (show_divergence_advice &&
 		    advice_enabled(ADVICE_STATUS_HINTS))
 			strbuf_addstr(sb,
-				_("  (use \"git pull\" to merge the remote branch into yours)\n"));
+				_("  (use \"git pull\" if you want to integrate the remote branch with yours)\n"));
 	}
 	free(base);
 	return 1;