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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AA01F619 for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 16:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727442AbgB2Qvn (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:51:43 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54213 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727274AbgB2Qvm (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:51:42 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAA05051A; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:51:40 -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=UpN/MYa7zzBhvw6pKaqHX6aes6g=; b=FQtqe4 LymcXNVES9m53bSPtHq2mCrSJurC6POrK1JSSrwjrQSLDXUbDpuRDcmbYkL2NdDu bAaf3LYThdrR2zWMra+0XgRshwL+ZAPZexkXnOIQSprpFfRf6ApLzFx6HwJ8538/ pePmYewIz/lL7wU7oNPwjXUEZXR/pkArKGzv8= 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=An2HMPLPIdjETzLGkRjmdrh1pLwX/3fE lM0K+DDArHFmt6H5blP5umqyK1olMKM1gvecOw5nIRvwtbZTRMTGBdyVsWxe9Rug Kdw8hLaA4ROWCwQcSgVULisT8R+RV8zirTNdSZeZ7MPKT3/fL2X8OUnD/ESyRh1M LG7Hj90gT9s= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E8E50519; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:51:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10F2850518; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:51:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Alex Henrie Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, rcdailey.lists@gmail.com, newren@gmail.com, rsbecker@nexbridge.com, annulen@yandex.ru Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase or to merge References: <20200229010927.335119-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:51:38 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200229010927.335119-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> (Alex Henrie's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:09:27 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C1B98CC0-5B13-11EA-AB19-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Alex Henrie writes: > + warning(_("Pulling without specifying whether to rebase or to merge is discouraged\n" > + "and will be disallowed in a future Git release.\n" Sorry for not catching this in the earlier round, but I do not think anybody argued, let alone the community came to a concensus on doing, such a strong move. Am I mistaken? I certainly did not intend to, at least when I commented on the earlier round and proposed an updated log message, I wasn't even aware of the possibility that we may want to turn this into die() after a transition period. Not that I'd object strongly to the idea, but it was somewhat unexpected. If we are proposing to make it a long-term plan, that should certainly be written down in the proposed log message. > + "Next time, run `git config pull.rebase (true|false)` first\n" > + "or pass --rebase, --no-rebase, or --ff-only on the command line.\n I am somewhat puzzled by "first, or". You certainly mean the config to be "set and forget", and you do not want to say "before you pull, do this first, always", but somehow the latter is the impression I got. But it does not sound to me like "Next time, and only next time, do this configuration. You can countermand the choice you make from the command line later if needed", which I think is what you meant to convey to your readers. You can squelch this message by `pull.rebase` configuration variable to show your preference. By passing --[no-]rebase or --ff-only from the command line, you can countermand the choice per invocation. is what I came up with, but I am not quite happy with it. It is overly long to start with X-<. ")); > + } > + > return REBASE_FALSE; > }