From: Matthias Baumgarten Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 10:22:28 GMT Subject: Re: When are you going to stop ignoring pull.mode? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <60f1daa896f69_330208b1@natae.notmuch> On 7/16/21 9:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > 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 >> >> * --no-rebase merge --ff >> only * --no-rebase merge --ff[2] >> false * --no-rebase merge --no-ff >> true * --no-rebase merge --ff >> >> * --rebase rebase >> only * --rebase rebase[2] >> false * --rebase ?[2] >> true * --rebase ?[2] >> >> * * --ff-only fast-forward only[1] >> >> * --no-ff merge --no-ff >> * false --no-ff merge --no-ff >> * !false --no-ff rebase (ignore --no-ff)[2][3] >> >> * --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? >> >> [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