Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > They start by saying the same thing. But one errors out and says the > user must choose, and the other warns that in the future the user must > choose. Then I do not see the point in giving the warning---even in the future they do not have to choose as long as they are merely following along. >> > Just to put this series in context: it's only part 1; it does not >> > introduce pull.mode, and it doesn't make --ff-only the default. >> >> I'd view the "in a non-fast-forward situation, the warning kicks in >> to those who haven't chosen between merge and rebase (i.e. no >> pull.rebase set to either true or false, and pull.ff not set to >> only), which is a bit more gentle than the current situtation" a >> good stopping point. That state is already making ff-only the >> default for unconfigured users, or you can view it as shipping "git >> pull" in a shape that has the more dangerous half of its feature >> disabled to avoid hurting users. So I am not sure why you keep >> saying you do not have --ff-only as the default. > > The warning doesn't make the pull fail, ff-only does. Then probably you are giving an error and a warning at a wrong place. - When history fast-forwards, and the user hasn't chosen between rebase or merge, there is no need to give any warning. Just succeed by fast-forwarding. - When history does not fast-forward and the user hasn't chosen between rebase or merge, whether pull.ff is set to "only" or not, we should fail and the error message can instruct the user to choose between rebase and merge; there is no "ff-only" option that is useful in the situation. And that essentially makes the "ff-only" mode the safe default that castrates one half of the feature (the more dangerous half) of "git pull". Why do we make it more complicated than that by warning that the user must choose in the future? They will see an error tell them that when they start pulling while on their own work, and I do not see a need to bother them before that point.
