From: Elijah Newren <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Junio C Hamano <email@example.com> Cc: "Alex Henrie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Phillip Wood" <email@example.com>, "Git Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ævar Arnfjörð" <email@example.com>, "Felipe Contreras" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull: abort if --ff-only is given and fast-forwarding is impossible Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:51:18 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CABPp-BH+LPbfdgixvSEGpLxwCHHSK99PFmE3q04jPZjLaqr5Xg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:55 PM Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Alex Henrie <email@example.com> writes: > > > Sorry, I misspoke. I was thinking of the case where fast-forwarding is > > impossible. > > When we cannot fast-forward (i.e. we have our own development that > is not in the tip of their history), > > --ff-only would cause the operation fail > --ff would become no-op (as it merely allows fast-forwarding) > --no-ff would become no-op (as it merely forbids fast-forwarding) > > and the latter two case, we'd either merge or rebase (with possibly > specified mode like --preserve-merges). I thought the current > documentation is already fairly clear on this point? git pull's --no-ff is documented to "create a merge commit in all cases", and thus as worded, seems incompatible with rebasing to me. Treating --no-ff as a no-op when we cannot fast-forward (i.e. allowing rebasing to happen) could be seen as a backwards incompatible change at this point. Having --ff be compatible with rebasing works because the end result will be the same as described in the existing documentation. > > If fast-forwarding is possible, --ff-only already effectively > > implies --no-rebase, and we might want to make that explicit in > > the documentation. > > When we fast-forward (i.e. their history is descendant from ours, > and the user did not give --no-ff), it does not matter if it is done > using the merge backend, the rebase backend, or by the "git pull" > wrapper. The end user does not care. The end result is that the tip > of the branch now points at the tip of the history we pulled from > the other side and that is all what matters. > > So, from that point of view, I do not think we want to say rebase or > merge or anything else for such a case in the documentation. All three of --ff, --no-ff, and --ff-only come from Documentation/merge-options.txt and are shared between git-merge and git-pull. The description of each of those items mentions "merges" or "merging" at least once in every sentence.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-12 20:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-07-11 1:26 Alex Henrie 2021-07-11 17:08 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-11 20:00 ` Alex Henrie 2021-07-11 21:41 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 10:21 ` Phillip Wood 2021-07-12 16:04 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 16:29 ` Alex Henrie 2021-07-12 17:43 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 17:08 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-07-12 17:30 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 17:50 ` Elijah Newren 2021-07-12 18:20 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 18:20 ` Alex Henrie 2021-07-12 18:24 ` Alex Henrie 2021-07-12 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-07-12 20:19 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 20:51 ` Elijah Newren [this message] 2021-07-12 23:00 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-07-12 23:05 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 23:24 ` Elijah Newren 2021-07-12 20:37 ` Elijah Newren 2021-07-12 21:06 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-12 17:54 ` Phillip Wood 2021-07-14 8:37 ` Son Luong Ngoc 2021-07-14 15:14 ` Felipe Contreras 2021-07-14 15:22 ` Elijah Newren 2021-07-14 17:19 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-07-14 17:31 ` Felipe Contreras
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CABPp-BH+LPbfdgixvSEGpLxwCHHSK99PFmE3q04jPZjLaqr5Xg@mail.gmail.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] pull: abort if --ff-only is given and fast-forwarding is impossible' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).