Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> - With the endgame of "out of box Git without any configuration > >> refuses 'git pull' (without --merge/--rebase) that does not > >> fast forward" in mind, start warning "In the future you will > >> have to either set pull.mode (and/or its friends) or type > >> "pull --merge" (or "pull --rebase") when the endgame version > >> of 'git pull' would fail with the error message, but still do > >> as was asked to do as before. At this step, existing users > >> can set pull.mode to "merge" or "rebase" or whatever to > >> squelch the warning. > >> > >> - Flip the default. By the time this happens, thanks to the > >> previous step to warn beforehand, nobody needs to see the > >> warning. (your step 4) > > > > This is what my last version of the series did[1]. However, my plan was > > to land this in 1.x so users could see the warning, and then flip the > > switch on 2.0. > > > > This plan, however, fell off the cliff. > > Yeah, I see that $gmane/234488 explains why the second step in the > previous one stopped. I guess it was in expecting a reroll state, > waiting for that other topic (I do not remember offhand) to > graduate. > > I see nothing touching the affected codepaths now, so this time > around we may have a better chance, perhaps? A chance of what? Do you want me to reroll to include the future backwards-incompatible change warning? Should I include the patch that turns the switch? -- Felipe Contreras -- 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