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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, 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 AF4B91F5AE for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233216AbhGWGuJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:50:09 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55362 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229774AbhGWGuI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:50:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 10146 invoked by uid 109); 23 Jul 2021 07:30:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:30:41 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 22857 invoked by uid 111); 23 Jul 2021 07:30:43 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 03:30:43 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 03:30:41 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Alex Henrie , Marc Branchaud , Philip Oakley , Elijah Newren , Stephen Haberman Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: pull: fix rebase=false documentation Message-ID: References: <20210721221545.1878514-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <60f8c8c92a215_1d0abb20859@natae.notmuch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <60f8c8c92a215_1d0abb20859@natae.notmuch> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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. 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