Re: [RFC/PATCH] tests: support testing with an arbitrary default branch (sort of)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 18, 2020, 15:56 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsg963bg9.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <87ima2rdsm.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> ... In my mind that doesn't even require a
> consideration of the political motivations at this point as far as
> git.git is concerned, just:
>
>  1. Major Git hosting providers already made the change
>
>  2. Realistically a lot/majority of git's user base interact with that
>     in a major way.
>
>  3. A discrepancy in any default between /usr/bin/git and those
>     providers is more confusing than not.
>
>  4. #3 doesn't mean they say "jump" we say "how high" whatever the
>     change is.
>
>     But in this case the default is an entirely arbitrary default. Not
>     e.g. that they decided to add some ill-thought out header to the
>     object format or whatever.

Yes.

> P.S.: Shouldn't the pull patch in d18c950a69f be using the advice
>      facility, not warning()?

I think warning() is the right thing here, as it is self squelching. Setting pull.rebase (even to 'false') is sufficient---there is no need to set advise.setpullrebase to 'false' on top.