From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E26181F5AE for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231357AbhGWJZI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:25:08 -0400 Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk ([85.233.160.19]:44530 "EHLO smtp.hosts.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230008AbhGWJZA (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 05:25:00 -0400 Received: from host-84-13-154-214.opaltelecom.net ([84.13.154.214] helo=[192.168.1.37]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1m6s3J-000CQt-DJ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:05:09 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: pull: fix rebase=false documentation To: Jeff King , Felipe Contreras Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Alex Henrie , Marc Branchaud , Elijah Newren , Stephen Haberman References: <20210721221545.1878514-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <60f8c8c92a215_1d0abb20859@natae.notmuch> From: Philip Oakley Message-ID: <9cb70776-8684-9d1e-e4c5-188c6c19fdc7@iee.email> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 11:05:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 23/07/2021 08:30, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 08:24:25PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> I'm not trashing the current behavior, I'm explaining what the consensus >> is. I spent several man-days re-reading old threads, and this is the >> consensus of what should happen: >> >> 1. git pull # merge HEAD into upstream >> 2. git pull origin topic # merge topic into HEAD >> >> Of the people that expressed an opinion, 100% of them stated that what >> `git pull` does in the first case today is not desirable. > I did not participate in the threads you linked earlier, so I am > probably not in that 100%. But you did use my name below: > >> Yes, you are correct that if *everyone* followed the topic branch >> workflow, everything would work correctly, but that's not what happens >> in reality, in reality people do all kinds of workflows, and wrong >> merges are pervasive. >> >> Everyone--including Linus, Jeff, and you--agree that there's two >> different ways of using `git pull`: integrator versus developer. >> >> When a user is doing `git pull` to synchronize changes to push to the >> same branch, that's a centralized two-way workflow, so he is acting both >> as an integrator and as a developer, and it's in that particular case >> that the order of the parents should be reversed. Everyone agrees on >> that. >> >> When the user the opposite explicitely: `git pull origin master` >> Linus calls it a "back-merge" [1], and in that case the order of the >> parents should not be reversed. > So I feel compelled to say now that I do not think that changing the > order of parents for "git pull" is the obviously correct thing to do. While I never `pull` because it's not right for me as a 'contributor', I do agree that the default 'maintainer' view of `pull` will need to be retained for long term backward compatibility. What I have rarely seen in the discussion is explanation that is based on workflow style, though the potential `update` command (1) may break some of the deadlock about the direction of 'pull requests', and possibly confusion regarding the location of the 'golden' publish repo. (1) there are a lot of 'update' commands floating about, esp on Git for Windows. If there is a suitably named `update` command to do the `pull --contributor` merge-ff swap then many of the issues could fade away. > And likewise, in the one thread I do remember participating in, I > expressed something similar: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20140502214817.GA10801@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > > -Peff -- Philip