Re: [PATCH] pull: allow branch.<name>.rebase to override pull.ff=only

>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM D. Ben Knoble
> <ben.knoble+github@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble+github@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >> So, I dunno.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed that if pull.ff=only is supposed to override all other options
> > > > (except those on the command-line), this might be wrong. And `git pull
> > > > --rebase` works in the scenario I described.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I view --ff-only as a safety measure for the user to say "my
> > > workflow is to make sure I do not have anything locally cooking on
> > > my branch when integrating with the other side, and stop me if I
> > > somehow made a mistake".  If rebase or other options override, the
> > > folks in the rebasing camp, unlike in the merging camp, cannot
> > > benefit from such safety measure, which worries me.
> >
> > Is there, then, an existing combination that means roughly to treat
> > `git pull` with no other options like this:
> > - if not rebasing, forbid merging and be equivalent to --ff-only
> > - if rebasing is requested (because of branch.name.rebase or --rebase
> > or …?), allow it
> >
> > In other words, something like a pull.merge=ff (or ff-only) meaning to
> > apply the rules I've attempted to describe, in which case I would
> > leave pull.ff unset?
> >
> > I suppose pull.rebase=true is close, but is not quite the same for me
> > (I'd like to be warned when this would imply a non-fast-forward for a
> > main branch, though the "rebasing" logs might be sufficient)…
>
> FWIW, I found some tests that indicate, to me, that I should use
> pull.rebase=true (or merges) + branch.<name>.rebase=false for the case
> I described: https://github.com/git/git/blob/08bdfd453584e489d5a551aecbdcb77584e1b958/t/t5520-pull.sh#L505-L514
>
> So it turns out my itch was already scratched.