From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB591F62B for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 19:56:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=YCPpsaQ5; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229578AbjBXT4d (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2023 14:56:33 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47126 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229503AbjBXT4c (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2023 14:56:32 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D7C16AC3 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:56:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id be35so206231oib.4 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:56:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E4IfdZhxXtpsHLKQAMe3FU1OuarMbq+fePVCIgkvlOs=; b=YCPpsaQ5Sw82pRIGmZ4sQLsjCmjOCqYMoY5IEHYnctDXqHkThkAcgwae3DsZjr5T+Q t5MZrjXh9SUuOb5XoCWalhprnkMsRV1pO4YhbPKRSVWWpcqOdBmhXaA7ZbZggvoWWrwf rvXcskPQMfdqyrh0Y0UC1rN1DcmMxHxMLwgzW5RJr67UzQ6QoCQ/BNARtXkAq+EUyZgz ebmPNG0V1js0z2mc4gBsOU6KXDgU2K1TVZKTzt4f95lSQ0ELUAXsc4XCo9s2B6GBQevb iERjyFpYgjxnIFz1l20YGTHGJSj3qb5NLMnvZEAD2wy8Rsc8jIxExQCuO5GT5aCu5rKN pQsw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=E4IfdZhxXtpsHLKQAMe3FU1OuarMbq+fePVCIgkvlOs=; b=XKB/dEZza/FrNaeieU5s6nCLM9yIMhyqhMdKD8WIQXUwyevp0WHSVQFZmecS03Ih4B nwCQ653a/G0t2Yxsvf9n/GIEaFC6buYoEb5Y3QeYIsPUGvQ4IPWbqRBzpDZJnREP7mLi OfV28mFknxNIo3rdbD9I/RgWRYMl8UOMxHvU7sdpQMKlz/oHpHBVuWoKR1wmh08jlY7A WQ3AzHcoWdn1cgcqj0IN1zOG/fZV7ySf/owiZ01CBg/jQF4Ue3CZ5ih/+zDhHFal60I9 MGVbfjV3ttxatQQP4XZwsMxtvPMAZGB2ruo4YSXy0rRFYXeDdgMQUx5QUFpBGRcNZGYy IR1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWhBrWAEGBYIxmerc0Jl00GQHnRjkh1Kq9mUmo6Q4rnA5AeH9nI KZweKs/cQFvGC+iM6Cq39CQL375Z69oFpI0zq9E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8uaSn1q1y66ckwMJDpfFHxEqRW7VbOTrBHJPCOAGTHYlnLex6eIyEJdDq7cpZ/YS2CmSrIevqms5jSfjRovWM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:abc:b0:378:30dc:ae5b with SMTP id r28-20020a0568080abc00b0037830dcae5bmr1510718oij.5.1677268591148; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:56:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230223053410.644503-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> <20230223053410.644503-2-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> <2b28155d-f82d-06b8-2df9-135608c6bf63@dunelm.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <2b28155d-f82d-06b8-2df9-135608c6bf63@dunelm.org.uk> From: Alex Henrie Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 12:56:14 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rebase: stop accepting --rebase-merges="" To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, tao@klerks.biz, newren@gmail.com, phillip.wood123@gmail.com, sorganov@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 12:24 PM Phillip Wood wrote: > > On 24/02/2023 19:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Alex Henrie writes: > > > >> Phillip is concerned about people and scripts assuming that > >> --rebase-merges is equivalent to --rebase-merges=no-rebase-cousins, > >> see [1]. > > > > Isn't that already broken when you introduce rebase.merges > > configuration? > > Scripts using --rebase-merges are not broken by the introduction of > rebase.merges so long as we follow our usual convention of always > allowing the commandline to override the config (i.e. --rebase-merges is > always equivalent to --rebase-merges=no-rebase-cousins). I don't really > understand why Alex is suggesting splitting the config into two based on > my comments. I was thinking that it would be less surprising to users if the option that broke the no-rebase-cousins assumption had "cousins" in its name. I should have stopped to think that that wouldn't really address your concern because regardless of what the option is named, it could still result in surprising behavior. I apologize for the unhelpful suggestion. > > People and scripts are already relying on the lack > > of rebase-merges to flatten, and script writers will be surprised to > > receive a "bug report" complaining that their script does not work > > when the users set rebase.merges to anything but no. > > That is true. In addition to specifying --no-rebase-merges rather than assuming it, shouldn't the "usual convention" for writing scripts also include being explicit about --rebase-merges=rebase-cousins or --rebase-merges=no-rebase-cousins? And if that is the case, is it really much of a loss to let rebase.merges=rebase-cousins override --rebase-merges without an argument? -Alex