Re: When are you going to stop ignoring pull.mode?
- From
- Matthias Baumgarten <matthias.baumgarten@aixigo.com>
- Date
- Jul 17, 2021, 10:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <c54fa084-75f4-b775-8ac2-6df3c7a36571@aixigo.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <60f1daa896f69_330208b1@natae.notmuch>
On 7/16/21 9:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 41 quoted lines
> Elijah Newren wrote: >> It may be a worthy goal, but I cannot implement correct behavior if I >> cannot determine what correct behavior is. >> >> You've only specified how to handle a subset of the valid combinations >> in each of your emails, and from those individually or even >> collectively I cannot deduce rules for handling the others. Reading >> the dozen+ recent messages in the various recent threads, I think I've >> figured out your opinion in all but two cases, but I have no idea your >> intent on those two (I would have thought --rebase override there too, >> but you excluded that), and I'm rather uncertain I've correctly >> understood you for the other ones (I really hope gmail doesn't >> whitespace damage the following table): >> >> pull.ff pull.rebase commandline action >> * * --ff-only --rebase fast-forward only[1] >> * * --rebase --no-ff rebase[1] >> * * --rebase --ff rebase[1] >> * * --ff-only --no-rebase fast-forward only >> * * --no-rebase --no-ff merge --no-ff >> * * --no-rebase --ff merge --ff >> >> <unset> * --no-rebase merge --ff >> only * --no-rebase merge --ff[2] >> false * --no-rebase merge --no-ff >> true * --no-rebase merge --ff >> >> <unset> * --rebase rebase >> only * --rebase rebase[2] >> false * --rebase ?[2] >> true * --rebase ?[2] >> >> * * --ff-only fast-forward only[1] >> >> * <unset> --no-ff merge --no-ff >> * false --no-ff merge --no-ff >> * !false --no-ff rebase (ignore --no-ff)[2][3] >> >> * <unset> --ff merge --ff >> * false --ff merge --ff >> * !false --ff rebase (ignore --ff)[2][3]
What about
* !false --ff-only ???
I think these are conflicting options, see [ ] (the ref without a number). This feels like saying oh, I want to rebase, but I want to fast-forward. What should happen with my local changes then? Could one argue that this should lead to the local changes being rebased on top of the remote?
Show 23 quoted lines
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq7dhrtrc2.fsf@gitster.g/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/c62933fb-96b2-99f5-7169-372f486f6e39@aixigo.com/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpmvn5ukj.fsf@gitster.g/
>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8s2b489p.fsf@gitster.g/
>>
>> It appears you, Phillip, and I all had different opinions about
>> correct behavior and in a few cases though the documentation clearly
>> implied what we thought. So, I'd have to say the documentation is
>> rather unclear as well. However, even if the above table is filled
>> out, it may be complicated enough that I'm at a bit of a loss about
>> how to update the documentation to explain it short of including the
>> table in the documentation.
>
> Yeah, now you are starting to see the problem.
>
> How many more failed attempts do you need to go through before accepting
> that the approach you thought was feasible is in fact not feasible?
>
> The solution is simple and self-documenting:
>
> pull.mode={fast-forward,merge,rebase}
> -- aixigo AG Karl-Friedrich-Str. 68, 52072 Aachen, Germany phone: +49 (0)241 559709-390, fax: +49 (0)241 559709-99 email: matthias.baumgarten@aixigo.com web: https://www.aixigo.com District Court Aachen – HRB 8057 Board: Christian Friedrich, Tobias Haustein Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr. Roland Schlager