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,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 ED5351FB0B for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 19:39:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728240AbgLDThv (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:37:51 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51413 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727272AbgLDThv (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:37:51 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA81A8F61; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:37:08 -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=a6NRS+QcnMdrLdhhyymAIMkQ12E=; b=xixggF MII8WdHX7jU8eVWJmRuLXlTthCy9Sxv8ZyS9kgYW1znpAElY1jZvG7Ea8P2E+Dn8 X22edGSwZ2nJ3vZBkgAj0oGw6cs42puB3vD41zIqvWv1a4OSM3thsx+AA8wa6xyw VTXaHi0/qxNtg1uuBMY2oT5TmC2XPKe7jIizU= 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=Nf+6x/U7Fu5ceZLN3LWEz1G7s2NMG/bz LKa3rO/qmWvGIUeKnib8Q0mdPlxdBTtdIC1ZqwFCXUWAP85DMwZSnFoVVJ23LifU 94MbWPEUzHymzkfmiNIZPxls7RZbJsYtSwFLhgE1UvjD/ytZAqJ0pCpmBfKKGCVh RkOIfI41jNM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5E5A8F60; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:37:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 505B2A8F5D; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:37:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Alex Henrie , Git , "Raymond E. Pasco" , Jeff King , =?utf-8?Q?V=C3=ADt?= Ondruch , Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] pull: default pull.ff to "only" when pull.rebase is not set either References: <20201125020931.248427-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> <20201125020931.248427-2-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 11:37:06 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Felipe Contreras's message of "Fri, 4 Dec 2020 00:37:28 -0600") 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: 18AE972A-3668-11EB-9FEE-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Felipe Contreras writes: >> What we want to see can be done without such backward incompatible >> changes, e.g. declaring the combination of "--ff-only" and >> "--[no-]rebase" incompatible and/or the last one wins, I would say, >> and I suspect Alex's RFC was an attempt to make the first step in >> that direction. > > It's debatable whether or not that is "backwards incompatible". > > Currently "--no-rebase --ff-only" fails if the merge is > non-fast-forward. With the proposed change of semantics it would work. > That's a change. But with such a change, "--ff-only --no-rebase" would work by ignoring the "I want to reject non-ff situation" request from the user, no? > Keep in mind the whole point of the changes: to make --ff-only the > default. Sorry, I know you keep repeating that "keep in mind", but I do not quite see why anybody needs to keep that in mind. Has a concensus that the repurposed --ff-only should be the default been established?