Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The discussion about making fast-forward-only pulls the default is > stuck on mud, and there's no agreement about what we should even > be warning our users about. The above perception of yours is mostly due to misunderstanding, I would have to say. We are in agreement on what we should be warning about at least, assuming that you are expressing what you want clearly in the latest round of responses and I understood them correctly [*1*]. I do not know if others on the list agree, though. I do agree that there is no agreement on the behaviour in the endgame. In principle, I am in favor of disabling the more dangerous half of the "git pull" command for those who haven't configured anything. But I can understand those who do not want that behaviour, as the fallout would be quite big. > Even my straightforward patches about improving documentation, and > the consistency of the UI with --merge and other obvious fixes > lost traction. It may be obvious to you, but may not be to others on the list who spoke in the thread and who didn't speak but read the discussion. I did see potential goodness in the documentation update and that was why I offered polishment on top of your patches in a v3 round, but seeing the suggestions dismissed without convincing arguments before v4 was sent out would have discouraged even the most patient reviewers among us. If you meant by "lost traction" the lack of comments on v4, that was my reason for not commenting. In any case, these three patches in this round looked quite sensible to me, except for the tests in 3/3, and minor details of 2/3, both of which I gave a more detailed review and suggestion. Thanks. [Footnote] *1* The only difference between us is whether it is sensible to allow explicitly ask to see the same behaviour as an unconfigured user except for the help text---I do not think it is, and I do want to avoid introducing pull.mode, but I've shown a way or two to get the behaviour without adding pull.mode in the mix.
