From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28293EB64DD for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 04:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233505AbjGMEKv (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:10:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57750 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233799AbjGMEK2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:10:28 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31100212D for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4fb7b2e3dacso492202e87.0 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1689221420; x=1691813420; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=SfY7RheRk08OQjDD/X5/c7DvBcI8cfN6xMLw1d9k/Xc=; b=l+R3G87jwaJ/kwEqnHtW282W+yKKntpo8ZLPLbdoyXfx6Sjb2s3DszZxAFRoRd3mSX 4gjr0BjJNTFea5ykg7T4We4QO73NWhtoGdJgvNrnWHdtX1DrBc2dTspEjFn/7HdWl3UL zy1kI7/u7pxfH47QCM/LLeJbuLnZzcd/nuSGc7PSsti4pTRxDdG9h+qHJBMnXxb/TaTd XT980VDRLbZScKl1ZCuzzpxytimsU1ayYxn58Qu+arS6OmYDcbQUE10elPsM2tRQGUEH ZQ54zn5K8gc1u/JxfJB/z36VJfgvcrNx5t3A2S0fzpbTCmnd9b0E1hc6lJudQ8hfqPzS mShw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689221420; x=1691813420; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SfY7RheRk08OQjDD/X5/c7DvBcI8cfN6xMLw1d9k/Xc=; b=jfukJlCBbt63sWKARGDeTlRfdWmNwbAzr/tBgQ1otaCLQVdMNOM9xCY9mrDh5jlhY4 wuZfKtMrnYW9kVYQJ2FeSJnAwGDf+Gf/arBVKTXlixyaYdX7ldoB2+BGbtRRVR24wdsr JMCacjtmCbMGXceOHlRo3QW6Wvy1w0zR62Au30mBWlGsDWVe+yO7S5qB2QZ9iYJ94/AU hTutyK5wrmYdhaPPVpDiMEYYc6Zy6WtHAIAKpISxLnBIplK4CrSysfUt61R/2bomzPj9 E+kPq90x6fIuMFhBYU0alxJL2Jd0MWSeP2jgaZErZhfgiRk9F3llAHr37vzFu2rh1NRM pk2g== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZuQHBw2JOClxODCl3bXNek49yPBTxh1LOFhZ2OgUmV9CK0gw/L WmzrNDOiUE1LsPHhDPcVALSfLjgg3+oAdJ8Z7YY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlGWWaCiLHYhaBbspUXgqoog+DyYa+bssssEzSTlJ+MTNo+4heEN11+nEugDUW9GXleyTd6HpXzkquZeEa3SDPQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1045:b0:4f9:cb8f:3182 with SMTP id c5-20020a056512104500b004f9cb8f3182mr175195lfb.25.1689221420013; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230704194756.166111-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> <20230706040111.81110-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> <20230706040111.81110-2-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Alex Henrie Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 22:09:42 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remote: advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, git@matthieu-moy.fr, christiwald@gmail.com, john@keeping.me.uk, philipoakley@iee.email, phillip.wood123@gmail.com, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:18=E2=80=AFAM Junio C Hamano = wrote: > > Alex Henrie writes: > > > Just to be sure that we're on the same page, when I said "I thought we > > just agreed that we don't need to mention force-pushing..." and you > > replied "I do not think so", were you only saying that you think that > > changes to `git commit` are essential, or were you also saying that we > > have not come to an agreement about whether to include force-pushing > > advice in this message? > > None of the above ;-) > > With that "I do not think so", I meant that I do not agree with "I > guess you're saying that we'd still be over-encouraging `git pull`" > that was in your message. In the message you were responding to, I > was saying that the time the user runs `git commit` is not a good > time for the user to decide how to eventually update the remote > target, and it does not matter which one we encourage more between > "`git pull [--rebase]` then `git push`" and "`git push --force`". > > I am fine dropping patch [1/2]; we would not be touching output from > "git status", "git commit", or "git checkout", and "we should not > talk about 'git pull' (or how the eventual remote update should go, > for that matter) when we notice that the base of the user's branch > has become stale" becomes totally out of the scope of this topic. I > think that we all are in agreement that [2/2] is the more important > part of this topic, as it more directly improves the guidance for > the end-users when their "push" triggers the non-ff check. Thanks for the clarification. This all started because of the message in `git status`, so despite it being the less important message, I feel pretty strongly that that message does need to be toned down slightly. There's also the problem of that message assuming that `git pull` will do a merge when it can do either a merge or a rebase, depending on the user's Git config. I've already written a patch to suppress the irrelevant advice in `git commit`, so I might as well send it. I'm hoping that we can agree to make a few tweaks to these advice messages without going as far as I originally proposed. -Alex