Re: Pull is Evil

["Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>]

From: "Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:45 PM
[...]
> I don't think we'll ever be able to create a One "Git Pull" To Rule 
> Them All.
> At best we'll end up with something with enough knobs that it could be
> configured to work in most workflows (I think we're actually pretty 
> close to
> that).  But for new users that defeats the purpose.  It means that 
> "git pull"
> is really an advanced command, and beginners should avoid it until 
> they
> understand enough of git to configure it properly.
>
> So rather than perpetuate the myth that one command can always (or 
> even just
> usually) do the right thing, let's just retire the command.
>
> All that said, I don't object to any attempts at improving the command
> either.  But I also don't see any kind of improvement that would lead 
> me to
> start using "git pull" let alone recommending it to new users.
>
> M.
>
> [1] By "significant" I mean "enough to perpetually create new mailing 
> list
> threads about changing 'git pull'".
>
[general reply to all, rather than to anyone in particular, using Marc's 
summary]

The point that there is no easy solution to an updated default pull 
action that is right for everybody, straight out of the box, I think is 
now fairly obvious, a summarised by Marc. I certainly avoid pull.

My 'solution', if it could be called that, would be that at the point of 
switch over, after a period of release note warning and then code 
warning, that the plain 'git pull' would not even do the no-ff, but 
would simply refuse to do anything unless the user had explicitly set 
the [new] config variable(s) to a value of _their_ choice. The message 
could give guidance based on their old setting(s) and the new options as 
appropriate, i.e. if they have an old definitive setting then the new 
setting may be an obvious one.

During the warning period between the release cycles, we may have a two 
step ramp up of the warning, where the first cycle allows users who have 
read the release notes to choose their new setting and it's auto 
detected from there on, then in the second cycle Git detects the lack of 
a setting and gives a warning prompt (just like the Git 2.0 warning), 
and finally the change over release makes a 'git pull' without a config 
setting an error.

I know that for some it's a phaff that appears to waste time (been 
there, been that person), but it does allow the stragglers time to pick 
up the hints and not be too surprised, which will include many otherwise 
professional folks who just happen to have other priorities [e.g. this 
message typed from a Win XP machine!].

The approach does have a solid heritage, and avoids anyone (on the 
coding side) having to decide on an initial default, when it should be a 
user choice. Though I do agree with Filipe that the '--no-ff merge' 
would probably be the least worst for the new user and likely be a 
suitable 'if you don't know use this one' suggestion.

Philip
--