From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Git <git@vger.kernel.org>, "Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] pull: stop warning on every pull
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 07:28:24 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0uyxs4p+HJ5ZDrrKJs9wQW4tSCZzPonpvP=FcTGCcxSA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo8j0io39.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 5:22 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The discussion about making fast-forward-only pulls the default is
> > stuck on mud, and there's no agreement about what we should even
> > be warning our users about.
>
> The above perception of yours is mostly due to misunderstanding, I
> would have to say. We are in agreement on what we should be warning
> about at least, assuming that you are expressing what you want
> clearly in the latest round of responses and I understood them
> correctly [*1*].
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but at every round where you have
stated what it is that I want, it's not actually what I want, and the
last round is no exception, in my option.
Let's assume that I'm not explaining clearly what I want.
In the last round you said you wanted an error, not a warning. That's
not what I want; I'm proposing a warning.
But that's not what I was referring to here.
> I do not know if others on the list agree, though.
This is what I was referring to. Initially there seemed to be some
interest, and suddenly that interest disappeared.
> I do agree that there is no agreement on the behaviour in the
> endgame.
See? I disagree.
I think the endgame is clear. How we get there is where there's no agreement.
> In principle, I am in favor of disabling the more
> dangerous half of the "git pull" command for those who haven't
> configured anything. But I can understand those who do not want
> that behaviour, as the fallout would be quite big.
And who is that? Did anyone in the list express that they did not want
that behavior?
> > Even my straightforward patches about improving documentation, and
> > the consistency of the UI with --merge and other obvious fixes
> > lost traction.
>
> It may be obvious to you, but may not be to others on the list who
> spoke in the thread and who didn't speak but read the discussion.
>
> I did see potential goodness in the documentation update and that
> was why I offered polishment on top of your patches in a v3 round,
> but seeing the suggestions dismissed without convincing arguments
> before v4 was sent out would have discouraged even the most patient
> reviewers among us. If you meant by "lost traction" the lack of
> comments on v4, that was my reason for not commenting.
I did not dismiss your suggestions, I replied to your suggestions [1].
You did not reply back.
Moreover, in patch 2 I saw you had some confusion [2], in which you
said you didn't see any value in updating the message without changing
the condition that triggers, to which I replied [3]: "Maybe it will be
clearer when I send all the patches."
That's why I sent v4; not because I thought the review of v3 was done,
but because we were stuck not seeing the evolution of the warning.
In v4 I went through every step of the evolution [4], and I went back
to what I said in v3:
At this point we can update the warning to mention that we are inside
a non-fast-forward case. But it's not necessary.
So I did not dismiss the suggestion, I replied to it, and put a pin on it.
You can certainly bring the same suggestion in v4, but I seem to have
convinced Elijah Newren that "fast-forward" can be used as an adverb
perfectly well, and it in fact is, in many places in the documentation
both internal, and external.
> In any case, these three patches in this round looked quite sensible
> to me, except for the tests in 3/3, and minor details of 2/3, both
> of which I gave a more detailed review and suggestion.
Great.
That should improve the situation of most users. And also has the
added benefit that it's 3 less patches I have to carry around on every
round.
Cheers.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s1ZDXzGfEqpTeiG=aGAYK40ebnBLQKAbA7KGtcePGARfw@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq4kkx9vzx.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s1aYqzCVvELH8zULaTkOdgLSSAQ0LE8WfgQKLPfU2MHfg@mail.gmail.com/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s2hUCd9qc83LReGyjy8N+u++eK6VjwGhDhrX0f0SbKmig@mail.gmail.com
--
Felipe Contreras
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-11 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-10 10:05 [PATCH v5 0/3] pull: stop warning on every pull Felipe Contreras
2020-12-10 10:05 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] pull: refactor fast-forward check Felipe Contreras
2020-12-11 6:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-12 15:18 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-10 10:05 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] pull: move default warning Felipe Contreras
2020-12-11 6:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-11 7:55 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-12 0:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-12 1:05 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-13 20:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-14 11:02 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-12 16:42 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-10 10:05 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] pull: display default warning only when non-ff Felipe Contreras
2020-12-11 7:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-11 12:48 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-11 23:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-12 1:01 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-12 2:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-12 16:01 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-14 21:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-14 21:40 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-11 7:17 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] pull: stop warning on every pull Junio C Hamano
2020-12-11 13:28 ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2020-12-12 2:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-12 16:36 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-14 0:57 ` Felipe Contreras
2020-12-12 16:52 Felipe Contreras
2020-12-12 16:56 ` 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='CAMP44s0uyxs4p+HJ5ZDrrKJs9wQW4tSCZzPonpvP=FcTGCcxSA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=vondruch@redhat.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).