From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE140C2BBCA for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:34:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1F223D5A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:34:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2394865AbgLKLdy (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 06:33:54 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:52223 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391679AbgLKLdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 06:33:36 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998AD97877; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 06:32:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:date:references:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=VdGZiuajtORPNgFD4lZzCJ/E4wg=; b=j/CalPzNLVmisyjypOWC rzI5MPgt4ob9mPnOcX//NNOIX1PA2hhRu3BgYXEYzJzDXhyLNA1gZV7OM/1UlHIs ehV0COzRibM0jM23PPAz3+idK+/837dlWPWgWKtHwHFj9md3B1BFgrhsUfi2YBoh 1jAuA3HXGk30379ph8QWO0A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:date:references:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qbC+0D18ThBy7tibDqUAPAUr6/L5WEM80FfNN5gU0PBkt2 NyrIBNx2L5jagckmY+pByS9/ZAU0ut0SH1SbI1HxKDZgK7wkJTOmGpjv+UC0GNaV Jl8wFzpZZGPzp0vNzQDVYZUaUSElsm/cyV5+lmkw7itbeJHpNDyqA0oRy10h4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923EB97876; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 06:32:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1036C97870; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 06:32:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Felipe Contreras Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Johannes Schindelin , Git , Emily Shaffer Subject: Re: fc/pull-merge-rebase, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2020, #01; Tue, 8) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 23:17:24 -0800 References: <20201210152715.GQ52960@mit.edu> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9A17F3CE-3BA4-11EB-BBCE-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Felipe Contreras writes: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:28 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> how much damage are we causing to >> existing users who expect the command to work the way it currently >> does? > > Zero. Because my proposal does *not* make the pull fail, it merely > prints a warning that it will change in the future. The approach to hold the "future" patch of and keep giving a "warning" is still likely to cause damage to people like Ted and Dscho (both gave examples of workflowsand automation that currently happily creating merges as the user expects, while the user just ignores the warning, without being configured at all), when finally the "future" patch (after fixing the test breakages, of course) lands. They just ignored the current loud messages---I do not see any reason to expect the updated "warning" would have any effect on them and help them to prepare for the future default change. It is either being dishonest or deliberatly closing eyes to say "Zero" after hearing what they said, I would have to say.