Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I may be mistaken, but I think "git pull" evolved to try to address the >> detached-HEAD risk (at least in part). > > You are totally mistaken. > > "git pull" was part of the things to make git usable by Linus before > 1.0 release, and matches the integrator workflow perfectly well. > The detached HEAD came much much later. > > The issue we are discussing with "git pull" is that if a non > integrator does a "git pull" from the upstream, in order to push the > result of integrating the local work with it back to the upstream, > by default "git pull" creates a merge in a direction that is wrong > when seen in the "first-parent chain is the trunk" point of view. > > One way to solve that _might_ be to use the detached HEAD as you > illustrated in your long-hand in the thread that had Brian's > example, but that is not even a failed 'git push' recommends to do > to the users, and there was no link between how 'git pull' behaves > and use of detached HEAD at all. One other thing to keep in mind is that the "first-parent" view itself is fairly new, compared to "git pull" (and it is even newer than detached HEAD IIRC, but I do not think detached HEAD has much to do with the current "'git pull' is often harmful" confusion, except that it may be one ingredient for a possible solution). Back when we started "A simple CVS/SVN like workflow can be done by cycles of 'git pull', do your work, 'git push'", the order of parents in resulting merges was not an issue. I am only saying these to give people the historical background to discuss a possible solution. I am not saying that it is a possible solution to discourage the "first-parent chain is the mainline of the development" world view. -- 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