Re: Re: Pull is Evil

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 2, 2014, 00:37 UTC
Message-ID: <5362e8b09aba1_429131b31038@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20140502000208.GB28634@odin.tremily.us>

W. Trevor King wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:48:46PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > > My interest in all of the proposed git-pull-training-wheel patches is
> > > > that they give users a way to set a finger-breaking configuration that
> > > > makes pull a no-op (or slows it down, like 'rm -i …').  Then folks who
> > > > compulsively run 'git pull' (e.g. because SVN habits die slowly) can
> > > > set an option that gives them something to think about before going
> > > > ahead and running the pull anyway.
> > > 
> > > Actually, what do we think about an -i/--interactive flag (with an
> > > associated pull.interactive boolean config to setup global/per-repo
> > > defaults)?  Then after the fetch, you'd get one of the following:
> > > 
> > >   Merge $count commits from $repository $refspec into $current_branch?
> > >   Rebase $count commits from $current_branch onto $repository $refpec?
> > 
> > Not much interactivity in those options. Maybe --prompt would make more
> > sense.
> 
> I think matching rm, mv, cp, etc. is good, but I'd be ok with
> --prompt.

Those are actually interactive. `git mergetool --prompt` is an exactly of a configration where it's interactivity is constrainted to a single input.

Show 5 quoted lines

> > >   Fast-forward $current_branch by $count commits to $repository $refpec?
> > 
> > Why would anyone say 'no' to this one?
> 
> Because the want explicit merges when they bring in topic branches?

If that was the case the user wouls have run `git merge --no-ff`. Only expereinced users would answer 'no'.

Show 9 quoted lines

> > > and have a chance to bail out if you saw:
> > > 
> > >   Merge 1003 commits from git://example.net/main.git master into my-feature?
> > > 
> > > because you forgot which branch you were on.
> > 
> > Yes, that might be nice. But we still need to change the defaults.
> 
> So I should submit an orthogonal patch with -i/--interative/--prompt?

I'm not entirely sure what would be the ideal behavior.

For example, I'm thinking that by default when the a fast-forward is possible, just do it, when it's not, ask if the user wants to do a merge or a rebase, if the user just press 'enter' a merge is attempted.

In addition a summary of the commits ahead behind would be helpful.

If the user wants to cancel the operation, he can just do CTRL+C.

-- 
Felipe Contreras