Re: Pull is Evil

> 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
> --