Re: When are you going to stop ignoring pull.mode?

[Matthias Baumgarten <matthias.baumgarten@aixigo.com>]

On 7/16/21 9:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Elijah Newren wrote:
>> It may be a worthy goal, but I cannot implement correct behavior if I
>> cannot determine what correct behavior is.
>>
>> You've only specified how to handle a subset of the valid combinations
>> in each of your emails, and from those individually or even
>> collectively I cannot deduce rules for handling the others.  Reading
>> the dozen+ recent messages in the various recent threads, I think I've
>> figured out your opinion in all but two cases, but I have no idea your
>> intent on those two (I would have thought --rebase override there too,
>> but you excluded that), and I'm rather uncertain I've correctly
>> understood you for the other ones (I really hope gmail doesn't
>> whitespace damage the following table):
>>
>>     pull.ff  pull.rebase  commandline            action
>>       *          *        --ff-only --rebase     fast-forward only[1]
>>       *          *        --rebase --no-ff       rebase[1]
>>       *          *        --rebase --ff          rebase[1]
>>       *          *        --ff-only --no-rebase  fast-forward only
>>       *          *        --no-rebase --no-ff    merge --no-ff
>>       *          *        --no-rebase --ff       merge --ff
>>
>>      <unset>     *        --no-rebase            merge --ff
>>      only        *        --no-rebase            merge --ff[2]
>>      false       *        --no-rebase            merge --no-ff
>>      true        *        --no-rebase            merge --ff
>>
>>      <unset>     *        --rebase               rebase
>>      only        *        --rebase               rebase[2]
>>      false       *        --rebase               ?[2]
>>      true        *        --rebase               ?[2]
>>
>>       *          *        --ff-only              fast-forward only[1]
>>
>>       *       <unset>     --no-ff                merge --no-ff
>>       *        false      --no-ff                merge --no-ff
>>       *       !false      --no-ff                rebase (ignore --no-ff)[2][3]
>>
>>       *       <unset>     --ff                   merge --ff
>>       *        false      --ff                   merge --ff
>>       *       !false      --ff                   rebase (ignore --ff)[2][3]

What about

          *       !false      --ff-only              ???

I think these are conflicting options, see [ ] (the ref without a 
number). This feels like saying oh, I want to rebase, but I want to 
fast-forward. What should happen with my local changes then? Could one 
argue that this should lead to the local changes being rebased on top of 
the remote?

>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq7dhrtrc2.fsf@gitster.g/
>>      https://lore.kernel.org/git/c62933fb-96b2-99f5-7169-372f486f6e39@aixigo.com/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpmvn5ukj.fsf@gitster.g/
>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8s2b489p.fsf@gitster.g/
>>
>> It appears you, Phillip, and I all had different opinions about
>> correct behavior and in a few cases though the documentation clearly
>> implied what we thought.  So, I'd have to say the documentation is
>> rather unclear as well.  However, even if the above table is filled
>> out, it may be complicated enough that I'm at a bit of a loss about
>> how to update the documentation to explain it short of including the
>> table in the documentation.
> 
> Yeah, now you are starting to see the problem.
> 
> How many more failed attempts do you need to go through before accepting
> that the approach you thought was feasible is in fact not feasible?
> 
> The solution is simple and self-documenting:
> 
>    pull.mode={fast-forward,merge,rebase}
> 
-- 
aixigo AG
Karl-Friedrich-Str. 68, 52072 Aachen, Germany
phone: +49 (0)241 559709-390, fax: +49 (0)241 559709-99
email: matthias.baumgarten@aixigo.com
web: https://www.aixigo.com
District Court Aachen – HRB 8057
Board: Christian Friedrich, Tobias Haustein
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr. Roland Schlager