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

From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 18:42:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130628174252.GF2232@serenity.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vli5up2tq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:22:57AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
> 
> >>  test_expect_success \
> >>      'merge-setup part 3' \
> >> -    'git pull . branch1'
> >> +    'git pull --merge . branch1'
> >
> > I think the "--merge" should be implied here because the suer has
> > specified an explicit remote and branch.
> 
> The whole point of the topic is "It used to be that when you said
> 'git pull' and did not tell us your preferred way to integrate your
> work and work by the others', we default to merging, but we no
> longer do so---you have to choose."
> 
> Here, "git pull . branch1" is merely saying "I want to integrate
> the work on my current branch with that of branch1" without saying
> how that integration wants to happen.

The change that I think is important is that the "bring my branch
up-to-date" operation should force the user to choose what to do if the
branch does not fast-forward to its upstream.  If that was spelled "git
update" then having "git pull" perform a merge would be fine, but we
spell this operation as "git pull" so the change needs to happen there.

I don't think "git pull remote branch" falls into the same category as
plain "git pull" so I'm not convinced that defaulting to merge there is
unreasonable.  The original message about this [1] did talk about only
"git pull" with no arguments.

> Even though, as an old timer, I find it mildly irritating that we
> now have to be explicit in these tests, this change is in line with
> the spirit of the topic.  If we didn't have to change this example
> and the pull silently succeeded without complaining, we achieved
> nothing.

I disagree that we would have achieved nothing.  New users will not be
using explicit arguments to git-pull when just trying to bring a branch
up-to-date.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/225240