Re: [RFC 2/2] pull: default pull.ff to "only" when pull.rebase is not set either

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 4, 2020, 21:11 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1Na1cf8=VdoejKr7JesmS6H3Gf=tkHLq4Zit0nxZXs4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh7p1fjml.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:37 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

>
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> What we want to see can be done without such backward incompatible
> >> changes, e.g. declaring the combination of "--ff-only" and
> >> "--[no-]rebase" incompatible and/or the last one wins, I would say,
> >> and I suspect Alex's RFC was an attempt to make the first step in
> >> that direction.
> >
> > It's debatable whether or not that is "backwards incompatible".
> >
> > Currently "--no-rebase --ff-only" fails if the merge is
> > non-fast-forward. With the proposed change of semantics it would work.
> > That's a change.
>
> But with such a change, "--ff-only --no-rebase" would work by
> ignoring the "I want to reject non-ff situation" request from the
> user, no?

Yes. And that's a change.

That's why the "pull.mode=ff-only" solution is cleaner; it doesn't need --ff-only to change its semantics.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Keep in mind the whole point of the changes: to make --ff-only the
> > default.
>
> Sorry, I know you keep repeating that "keep in mind", but I do not
> quite see why anybody needs to keep that in mind.  Has a concensus
> that the repurposed --ff-only should be the default been
> established?

That's the whole point of this patch (pull: default pull.ff to "only" when pull.rebase is not set either).

If not --ff-only, then "pull.mode=ff-only".

Are you saying making the default be fast-forward merges only is not the eventual end-goal?

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras