From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0A61F4C0 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 03:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730599AbfJ2DZr (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:25:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51758 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730052AbfJ2DZr (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:25:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1992634DD3; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:25:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Hin2j4/6NRsC3JIa8J6qdmEtbRs=; b=pn5DbN qK11zauo2X7X1JXnPYobZEvkKRCV5jzeQlPw1/dzgx1sMdD0wYHA6fsroGjzkYRy yezdrC7tjEz7DegLpHgRWzSFvLOb0arm+1F38pS9W9UYnKEM98yyevsbVDah+Y2i 93sltt33vZBPteb4F4465ftN2AnHKKFry/7N0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=X6FsASZ3S5bk7H/19suK+gbIwfRzwgRV aStykxXQhcS+OEyaq+g+eobCcaczHYfhbswOLSyrnyTgIyKaTbqrrWvjDFqBXShc BbtMnMi3H/fuZoDPsIHBemSe0jCRTJb+3v2At6fZQCIuZOvLkmfp6UmrEoFKm3V8 x14xGq9zFgw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F6D34DD2; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:25:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 665B434DD1; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:25:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Mihail Atanassov , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-bisect.txt: add --no-ff to merge command References: <20191025222032.3399-1-m.atanassov92@gmail.com> <20191026022655.GF39574@google.com> <20191028222405.GE12487@google.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:25:43 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:24:22 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CAB38EF8-F9FB-11E9-A537-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >> As an orthogonal point, I wonder whether we can start the multi-step >> migration of making --no-commit imply --no-ff by default: >> >> 1. Act as --ff when --no-commit is passed without --ff or --no-ff >> (the state today) > > which means "--no-commit controls whether a new commit is created or > not and nothing else, and because --ff is the default for merge, > merging a true descendant will fast-forward". > >> 5. Refuse to perform a fast-forward merge with --no-commit is passed >> without --ff or --no-ff, just as though --no-ff were passed. > > Is that a good endgame, though? Ah, I was confused by "refuse to perform". You were not trying to make the command fail outright without doing anything. Yes, that would be a good endgame, I would think. I am not sure if the transition would be smooth, though.