On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 05:25:27AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 09:10:47AM +0100, John Keeping wrote: > > > I think there are two distinct uses for pull, which boil down to: > > > > (1) git pull > > (2) git pull $remote $branch > > > > For (1) a merge is almost always the wrong thing to do since it will be > > backwards and break --first-parent. > > Is it always wrong? You are assuming a topic-branch workflow where > --first-parent is actually meaningful. What about a centralized workflow > where everyone works on "master"? The correct thing to do on a non-ff > push in that case is "git pull && git push". Some people would argue > that the pull should rebase there, but I think there are valid arguments > either way. We can discuss in that direction if you want. I'm one of the people who argues that it should rebase there ;-) The point of jc/pull-training-wheel is to help users think about that. > I can perhaps buy the argument that it is better to help people who are > using a topic branch workflow (which we generally want to encourage) to > avoid making backwards merges, and the cost is that people with sloppy > workflows will have to do more work / configuration. But we should be > clear that this is a tradeoff we are making. > > The patch in jc/pull-training-wheel talks about annoying old timers, but > I think you may also be annoying clueless new users who simply want an > svn-like workflow without thinking too hard about it. The scenario I have is a central repository where some developers use a topic branch workflow but others are less familiar with Git and don't really think about what they're doing. > > > I do not think we know what we want is to affect "git pull origin". > > > > I consider "git pull $remote" to be an artifact of the way git-pull is > > implemented on top of git-fetch; perhaps I'm missing something but I > > can't see a scenario where this is useful. > > Imagine a workflow where each topic is in its own repository instead of > in its own branch inside a repository. Or where each developer has his > or her own repository, but everybody just works on the master branch of > their repository (or perhaps uses branches, but keeps master as a stable > base). Alice is the integration manager; Bob tells her that he has work > ready to integrate. She runs "git pull ~bob/project", which will merge > Bob's HEAD. > > This is not very different from the kernel workflow, where Linus may do > a "git pull $remote" to fetch a sub-system maintainer's work, except > that these days people typically mark the to-be-integrated work in a > "for-linus" branch or tag. However, you can find many "Merge git://" > entries even in recent kernel history. > > I think this kind of pull would fall into the same situation as your (2) > above. OK - so I was missing this. Given this, the jc/pull-training-wheel series is doing the right thing here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html