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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,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 0C0411F86C for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 01:42:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727620AbgKYAju (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:39:50 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:54592 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727084AbgKYAju (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:39:50 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA771F41DC; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:39:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=g3E9HJ7k99K3bHHooYcL/8AimFY=; b=nnpBnb ejTN2e7KsPkt2S3ZYbAy12PAbhnTb2CjAAHoOO4waHErsLTjVn9BlQnMJvQ/vbYo Ez3xDQ/4IpGZ9IoDNflIuVGxa1jEJsSYC70HOFUBDDToz+5TKBQY3U8H1lS45SZu v6X0j9AMcyeIYPrHbMnZSF7k0wEB43HSg8zcw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tYWPmAHuSk7qBylDGWGy4YulDJTu02tC Zi1nC/PISorFtCbv3CTyAnxpyXbkOEd0K2q4tgxLx/CoIFXY3ifXj8+gKto+3dzo f9DqGjN1O5x5AV3EqJRWUGlfEQ7Ny4/g5qXNS5u+Gqvs4wNOLFcDu/lXWyDgSfC1 c3G/u/qvBmo= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BD2F41DB; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:39:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 166A9F41DA; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:39:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Alex Henrie Cc: Felipe Contreras , Jeff King , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , =?utf-8?Q?V=C3=ADt?= Ondruch , Git mailing list Subject: Re: Pick the right default and stop warn on `git pull` References: <20201123191355.GA132317@mit.edu> <20201123202003.GB132317@mit.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:39:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Alex Henrie's message of "Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:23:49 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B639788E-2EB6-11EB-B3D4-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Alex Henrie writes: > We'd only need a warning if both pull.ff and pull.rebase are unset, > since that's the only situation where the behavior would change. And > providentially, we already have a warning in that exact case, although > we should probably tweak it to explain what the new behavior is going > to be :-) If we were starting "git pull" from scratch without any existing configuration and command line options, pull.mode might present a simpler end user experience, but I have to say that pull.ff and pull.rebase that are fairly well ingrained in docs and users' minds, the above plan sounds like a better option to reduce the cognitive overhead for users. >> And yes, it should be possible to do what you suggest, but have you >> tried? I suspect both the code and the documentation would be quite >> convoluted. > > Yes, I have written a very simple patch that implements the behavior > that I am suggesting. I will send it to the mailing list later > tonight. Let's see how well the comparison between two approaches play out. Thanks.