Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... 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.
