Re: [PATCH v2 11/14] tentative: pull: change the semantics of --ff-only

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 5, 2020, 04:01 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1wFPQ0mEExYUQfxYx2AjMZS2=zL5ihfjp3qjp+EfNe9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BG0WWvk96T757WMx=004qVqkf+SU8m3cCZsb1feTZJ80Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:39 PM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:16 PM Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We want --ff-only to make sense only when no --merge or --rebase option
> > is specified.
>
> A lot of git commands have opposite options, and git allows them both
> to be specified with the last one winning.  Thus, much like
>   git log --patch --no-patch
> mean show logs without patches and
>   git log --no-patch --patch
> means show logs with patches, I would similarly expect the following
> two commands to have opposite behavior:
>   git pull --merge --no-ff
>   git pull --no-ff --merge

Good point.

Although I presume you meant --ff-only.

Taking that into consideration it may be possible to make --ff-only work straightforwardly.

Further changes to the code are needed though. In the meantime I'm sending a quick patch on top of this series.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras