Oops..
From: "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@xxxxxxx>
From: "Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:45 PM
[...]
I don't think we'll ever be able to create a One "Git Pull" To Rule
Them All.
At best we'll end up with something with enough knobs that it could
be
configured to work in most workflows (I think we're actually pretty
close to
that). But for new users that defeats the purpose. It means that
"git pull"
is really an advanced command, and beginners should avoid it until
they
understand enough of git to configure it properly.
So rather than perpetuate the myth that one command can always (or
even just
usually) do the right thing, let's just retire the command.
All that said, I don't object to any attempts at improving the
command
either. But I also don't see any kind of improvement that would lead
me to
start using "git pull" let alone recommending it to new users.
M.
[1] By "significant" I mean "enough to perpetually create new mailing
list
threads about changing 'git pull'".
[general reply to all, rather than to anyone in particular, using
Marc's summary]
The point that there is no easy solution to an updated default pull
action that is right for everybody, straight out of the box, I think
is now fairly obvious, a summarised by Marc. I certainly avoid pull.
My 'solution', if it could be called that, would be that at the point
of switch over, after a period of release note warning and then code
warning, that the plain 'git pull' would not even do the no-ff, but
s/no-ff/--ff/g that is, only 'merge' if it's a fast forward.
would simply refuse to do anything unless the user had explicitly set
the [new] config variable(s) to a value of _their_ choice. The message
could give guidance based on their old setting(s) and the new options
as appropriate, i.e. if they have an old definitive setting then the
new setting may be an obvious one.
During the warning period between the release cycles, we may have a
two step ramp up of the warning, where the first cycle allows users
who have read the release notes to choose their new setting and it's
auto detected from there on, then in the second cycle Git detects the
lack of a setting and gives a warning prompt (just like the Git 2.0
warning), and finally the change over release makes a 'git pull'
without a config setting an error.
I know that for some it's a phaff that appears to waste time (been
there, been that person), but it does allow the stragglers time to
pick up the hints and not be too surprised, which will include many
otherwise professional folks who just happen to have other priorities
[e.g. this message typed from a Win XP machine!].
The approach does have a solid heritage, and avoids anyone (on the
coding side) having to decide on an initial default, when it should be
a user choice. Though I do agree with Filipe that the '--no-ff merge'
s/no-ff/--ff/
would probably be the least worst for the new user and likely be a
suitable 'if you don't know use this one' suggestion.
Philip
--
sorry for the finger-brain failures.
--
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