PR merge should, after switching branches, pull #1444
Description
Describe the bug
After gh pr merge, I get put back onto my default branch (which, in this case, the PR was against). However, this branch was not locally updated to have the merge present.
Steps to reproduce the behavior
Terminal log (edited for prompt brevity, I only left the branch name in):
[pres-ietf-108] $ gh pr merge
? What merge method would you like to use? Create a merge commit
? Delete the branch locally and on GitHub? Yes
✔ Merged pull request #38 (presentation for IETF 108 DPRIVE)
✔ Deleted branch pres-ietf-108 and switched to branch master
[master] $ git pull
remote: Enumerating objects: 1, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (1/1), done.
remote: Total 1 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0
Unpacking objects: 100% (1/1), done.
From github.com:PowerDNS/parent-signals-dot
6436913..34a4249 master -> origin/master
Updating 6436913..34a4249
Fast-forward
draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin/presentations/bs | 7 +
.../presentations/ietf-108-dprive.md | 217 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.../presentations/template/index.html | 22 +++
.../presentations/template/remark.min.js | 18 +++
.../presentations/template/style.scss | 225 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 489 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin/presentations/bs
create mode 100644 draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin/presentations/ietf-108-dprive.md
create mode 100644 draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin/presentations/template/index.html
create mode 100644 draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin/presentations/template/remark.min.js
create mode 100644 draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin/presentations/template/style.scss
$ gh --version
gh version 0.11.0 (2020-07-16)
https://github.com/cli/cli/releases/tag/v0.11.0
Expected vs actual behavior
I would have expected my master branch to have the PR merge before I did git pull myself.
Logs
Done above as part of 'Steps to reproduce'.
Other details
When checking if there was an open issue about this, I found #1096, which I feel is part of the same surprise - it also breaks 'I expect to end up in the merged state I asked for'.