Re: [PATCH] pull: require choice between rebase/merge on non-fast-forward pull

From: "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>, Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>,
	John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull: require choice between rebase/merge on non-fast-forward pull
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:10:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130627201032.GF9999@odin.tremily.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v4ncjs5az.fsf_-_@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
> easy with "git pull", a person who is new to Git may not realize
> that the project s/he is interacting with may prefer "rebase"
> workflow.

Or they may not even realize that they've just merged an unrelated
branch at all, dragging in a thousand unrelated commits which they
accidentally push to a central repository without looking,
contaminating future branches based on the central repostitory without
drastic rebase surgery ;).  I just saw one of these earlier this week.

>  * This is not a serious inclusion proposal yet, but to see if
>    people are still interested in possibly helping new users.

What needs to happen to make it serious?  I'm happy to help.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]