Hi, On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 1:53 AM Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:16 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > That is exemplified by the fact that this whole thread started from a > > > user that refused to configure pull.rebase and expected the Git > > > project to just do the right thing (which is basically choosing a > > > useful default). > > > > Which is basically asking for impossible, and I do not think it is a > > good idea to focus our effort to satisfy such a request in general. > > There is no useful default that suits everybody in this particular > > case. > > I think I already made this point, but this is the nirvana fallacy > (the perfect is the enemy of the good) [1]. Just because we can't have > the perfect solution doesn't mean we can't pursue something better > than the current state. > > What was asked was not a perfect solution, just a better default. If > right now the default is good enough for 20% of users, and with some > changes we can make it better for 40%... that's progress. We don't > have to wait until we have a solution for 100% of them. > > > But for anybody who uses git for real (read: produces his or her own > > history), it would be pretty much a useless default that forces the > > user to say rebase or merge every time 'git pull' is run. > > This is not true. > > I will give you a real example. > > I create a branch named "fc/margin" based on "master", I make my > changes, I push the branch to my personal repository, and create a > pull request. This is the typical triangular workflow. > > Then I do "git pull [--ff-only]". What will happen? 1) As long as my > branch is not merged upstream, I will get an error, and my branch will > stay where it is. But then, 2) when my branch is finally merged to > "master" it will be fast-forwarded, so now both "fc/margin" and > "origin/master" point to the same commit. > > A. Did I use git "for real"? (produce my own history) > B. Was "git pull [--ff-only]" useful in this case? > > I think that one of the problems is that Git has so many different > workflows that finding another person that has your same workflow is > like finding a person with your same birthday. It's not impossible, > just takes more than a few tries. > > Also, and this is not a deriding question, I'm genuinely curious: how > often do you send pull requests? > > BTW, this example above is real [2]. In my particular case very often > I'm creating history, I'm just not the one pulling it. > > > But other than that, I do not > > see any real use for the choice, which would mean in practice, > > pull.mode would have only two useful values, rebase or merge. That > > does not feel a good enough reason to supersede what already exists, > > which is pull.rebase=yes/no. > > The fact that you don't see the use doesn't mean the use is not there. > > Why do you think this issue keeps coming back again and again, and > again? And every time it comes back people say the same thing: > "fast-forward-only merges should be the default". > > Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's a rabbit hole that leads to a > cacophony of issues in git pull. However, we can fix some of them > *today*. > > > Perhaps there is a good reason why certain classes of users would > > want to configure pull.mode=ff-only (i.e. "I might type 'git pull' > > by mistake, please stop me if I did so on a branch I have real work > > already."). If that is the case, I would very much agree that it > > would be awkward to express that choice in the current framework to > > choose between pull.rebase=yes/no and pull.mode=(rebase/merge/ff-only) > > would become a lot easier to explain. > > There's three options: > > 1. pull.ff=only (that doesn't work IMO) > 2. pull.rebase=ff-only (that works, but it's kind of wonky) > 3. pull.mode=ff-only (maybe it should be pull.mode=fast-forward) > > But the current option (pull.mode=merge) just doesn't fly. And BTW, I > did create a poll in reddit's r/git [3], and 67% (of 789) said they > didn't specify anything, just "git pull". > > So, most people simply do "git pull" and hope for the best. > > Moreover, in 2014 I said if we don't fix it now (which is likely), we > will be discussing it again [4], and here we are now. And I'm saying > it again: leave the mode as "merge", we will be discussing this again. > > I could do some mail archeology if you want, but this issue starts to > be mentioned at least since 2010, and virtually everyone (except one > person) agreed the default must change, even Linus Torvalds. Reading > back what Linus said [5], it's something very, *very* close to what > I'm proposing (I would argue my proposal is better). > > So you let me know. Do you want me to dig a decade of discussions and > coalesce those conclusions into a summary so we can decide how to > proceed? Or should I drop the plan? Only that if we drop it, I > *guarantee* we will discuss it yet again years later. > > Moreover, this is the reason why I split the series in 3. Even if you > decide you don't want to change the default, part I of the series can > still be merged *today*, and everyone would benefit. Have I missed some subtlety here? This whole email appears to me to be arguing against a strawman. Reading Junio's other emails in this thread[1][2], it's pretty clear he thinks the current behavior is buggy and suggests how it should be changed. From what I can tell, you appear to be arguing against doing nothing and against only accepting perfection, neither of which were positions I saw anyone take. In fact, the positions you argue for at length appear to exactly match the ones he took[1][2]. What am I missing? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq360h8286.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqlfe99yvy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
