RE: [PATCH] pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase or to merge

From: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Date: Feb 29, 2020, 16:16 UTC
Message-ID: <012801d5ef1b$a0167740$e04365c0$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200229030344.GG101220@mit.edu>

On February 28, 2020 10:04 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> Cc: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>; git@vger.kernel.org;
> rcdailey.lists@gmail.com; newren@gmail.com; rsbecker@nexbridge.com;
> annulen@yandex.ru
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase

or to

Show 16 quoted lines

> merge
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:16:01PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > To
> > > avoid that situation, Git should require users to explicitly specify
> > > whether their primary workflow is a contributor/rebasing workflow or
> > > a maintainer/merging workflow.
> >
> > There is nothing Git "should" do.  There are things we wish Git did,
> > and we give orders to the codebase to do so in our proposed log
> > message.  Perhaps like:
> 
> I'd also note that there are some workflows that assume that --rebase is
> *never* a good thing, even for contributors.  We can decide whether we
> want to bias the git man page in favor of one workflow as opposed to
> another, for the sake of new git users, but I don't think it's accurate to

say

> (or even imply) that there are only two workflows:
> contributor/rebasing and maintainer/merging.

I second this sentiment. The repositories my community (outside my company) has are typically large (3-5Gb of sources) with 10K-100K individual files. They all use a */merging paradigm.

Randall