Re: Rebase options via git pull

> Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2021-05-17 15:33:18+0300, Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Probably add generic cmd.<cmd>.opts config support, so that I can say:
>>> >>
>>> >>   git -c cmd.rebase.opts="--no-fork-point --empty=keep" pull --rebase
>>> >>
>>> >> Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > It's been discussed before (but I did not dig up the discussions,
>>> > sorry). It's been considered a bad idea, because our commands are a
>>> > mixture of plumbing/porcelain commands and switches, so we want to be
>>> > able to reliably invoke say ls-tree with some switches internally,
>>> > without config tripping us up.
>>> >
>>> > Of course we could make this sort of thing work by selectively ignoring
>>> > the config, but such a thing would be equal in complexity to the effort
>>> > of assering that it's safe to introduce new rebase.* config in the
>>> > codebase for every switch it has now, but with a less friendly interface
>>> > both for git itself and users.
>>> 
>>> I don't see much complexity here. We'd then just need to effectively
>>> invoke ls-tree internally like this:
>>> 
>>>    git -c 'cmd.ls-tree.opts=' ls-tree
>>> 
>>> Not a big deal.
>>
>> It's a big deal.
>>
>> Scripts was written with plumbing command and expect stable output.
>> If such change can be accepted, a lot of scripts will begin to fail.
> 
> Makes sense. Then simply don't do it for plumbing?

>>> > Of course we could make this sort of thing work by selectively ignoring
>>> > the config, but such a thing would be equal in complexity to the effort
>>> > of assering that it's safe to introduce new rebase.* config in the
>>> > codebase for every switch it has now, but with a less friendly interface
>>> > both for git itself and users.