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

From: "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>
To: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	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: Re: [PATCH] pull: require choice between rebase/merge on non-fast-forward pull
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:19:02 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130628011902.GD11985@odin.tremily.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vpqwqpf9p2i.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:16:53AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> IMHO, that would be terrible for beginners.
> 
> My experience with many beginners/students is: they run "git pull" to
> get changes from their co-workers, don't read the messages.

I admit that I'd be happy with a config option that just disabled pull
entirely (forcing people to fetch/merge explicitly) to avoid this type
of beginner mistake.  With an unconfigured pull.rebase, this patch
does that for merge/rebase cases, while still letting folks pull when
it's a clean fast forward (usually ok).

I'd also be happy with an opt-in disable.  The real solution would be
to talk my group out of using a central shared repository or into
using pull-free feature branches, but I don't see either on my
horizon.  Git doesn't need to change to mitigate sloppy-shared-repo
problems, but having some sort of anti-pull configuration option would
certainly help me out.

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 --]