git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] pull: stop warning on every pull

From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date
Dec 11, 2020, 13:28 UTC
Message-ID
<CAMP44s0uyxs4p+HJ5ZDrrKJs9wQW4tSCZzPonpvP=FcTGCcxSA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqo8j0io39.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 5:22 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
>
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The discussion about making fast-forward-only pulls the default is
> > stuck on mud, and there's no agreement about what we should even
> > be warning our users about.
>
> The above perception of yours is mostly due to misunderstanding, I
> would have to say.  We are in agreement on what we should be warning
> about at least, assuming that you are expressing what you want
> clearly in the latest round of responses and I understood them
> correctly [*1*].

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but at every round where you have stated what it is that I want, it's not actually what I want, and the last round is no exception, in my option.

Let's assume that I'm not explaining clearly what I want.

In the last round you said you wanted an error, not a warning. That's not what I want; I'm proposing a warning.

But that's not what I was referring to here.
> I do not know if others on the list agree, though.

This is what I was referring to. Initially there seemed to be some interest, and suddenly that interest disappeared.

> I do agree that there is no agreement on the behaviour in the
> endgame.
See? I disagree.
I think the endgame is clear. How we get there is where there's no agreement.
> In principle, I am in favor of disabling the more
> dangerous half of the "git pull" command for those who haven't
> configured anything.  But I can understand those who do not want
> that behaviour, as the fallout would be quite big.

And who is that? Did anyone in the list express that they did not want that behavior?

Show 13 quoted lines
> > Even my straightforward patches about improving documentation, and
> > the consistency of the UI with --merge and other obvious fixes
> > lost traction.
>
> It may be obvious to you, but may not be to others on the list who
> spoke in the thread and who didn't speak but read the discussion.
>
> I did see potential goodness in the documentation update and that
> was why I offered polishment on top of your patches in a v3 round,
> but seeing the suggestions dismissed without convincing arguments
> before v4 was sent out would have discouraged even the most patient
> reviewers among us.  If you meant by "lost traction" the lack of
> comments on v4, that was my reason for not commenting.

I did not dismiss your suggestions, I replied to your suggestions [1]. You did not reply back.

Moreover, in patch 2 I saw you had some confusion [2], in which you said you didn't see any value in updating the message without changing the condition that triggers, to which I replied [3]: "Maybe it will be clearer when I send all the patches."

That's why I sent v4; not because I thought the review of v3 was done, but because we were stuck not seeing the evolution of the warning.

In v4 I went through every step of the evolution [4], and I went back to what I said in v3:

  At this point we can update the warning to mention that we are inside
  a non-fast-forward case. But it's not necessary.
So I did not dismiss the suggestion, I replied to it, and put a pin on it.

You can certainly bring the same suggestion in v4, but I seem to have convinced Elijah Newren that "fast-forward" can be used as an adverb perfectly well, and it in fact is, in many places in the documentation both internal, and external.

> In any case, these three patches in this round looked quite sensible
> to me, except for the tests in 3/3, and minor details of 2/3, both
> of which I gave a more detailed review and suggestion.
Great.

That should improve the situation of most users. And also has the added benefit that it's 3 less patches I have to carry around on every round.

Cheers.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s1ZDXzGfEqpTeiG=aGAYK40ebnBLQKAbA7KGtcePGARfw@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq4kkx9vzx.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s1aYqzCVvELH8zULaTkOdgLSSAQ0LE8WfgQKLPfU2MHfg@mail.gmail.com/ [4] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s2hUCd9qc83LReGyjy8N+u++eK6VjwGhDhrX0f0SbKmig@mail.gmail.com

-- 
Felipe Contreras
Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 23 of 26 in “pull: stop warning on every pull”
  1. 0/3 pull: stop warning on every pullFelipe Contreras, Dec 10, 2020
  2. 2/3 pull: move default warningFelipe Contreras, Dec 10, 2020
  3. Junio C HamanoDec 11, 2020
  4. Felipe ContrerasDec 11, 2020
  5. Junio C HamanoDec 12, 2020
  6. Felipe ContrerasDec 12, 2020
  7. Junio C HamanoDec 13, 2020
  8. Felipe ContrerasDec 14, 2020
  9. Felipe ContrerasDec 12, 2020
  10. 1/3 pull: refactor fast-forward checkFelipe Contreras, Dec 10, 2020
  11. Junio C HamanoDec 11, 2020
  12. Felipe ContrerasDec 12, 2020
  13. 3/3 pull: display default warning only when non-ffFelipe Contreras, Dec 10, 2020
  14. Junio C HamanoDec 11, 2020
  15. Felipe ContrerasDec 11, 2020
  16. Junio C HamanoDec 11, 2020
  17. Felipe ContrerasDec 12, 2020
  18. Junio C HamanoDec 12, 2020
  19. Felipe ContrerasDec 12, 2020
  20. Junio C HamanoDec 14, 2020
  21. Felipe ContrerasDec 14, 2020
  22. Junio C HamanoDec 11, 2020
  23. Felipe ContrerasDec 11, 2020
  24. Junio C HamanoDec 12, 2020
  25. Felipe ContrerasDec 12, 2020
  26. Felipe ContrerasDec 14, 2020

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.