Elijah Newren wrote: > It may be a worthy goal, but I cannot implement correct behavior if I > cannot determine what correct behavior is. > > You've only specified how to handle a subset of the valid combinations > in each of your emails, and from those individually or even > collectively I cannot deduce rules for handling the others. Reading > the dozen+ recent messages in the various recent threads, I think I've > figured out your opinion in all but two cases, but I have no idea your > intent on those two (I would have thought --rebase override there too, > but you excluded that), and I'm rather uncertain I've correctly > understood you for the other ones (I really hope gmail doesn't > whitespace damage the following table): > > pull.ff pull.rebase commandline action > * * --ff-only --rebase fast-forward only[1] > * * --rebase --no-ff rebase[1] > * * --rebase --ff rebase[1] > * * --ff-only --no-rebase fast-forward only > * * --no-rebase --no-ff merge --no-ff > * * --no-rebase --ff merge --ff > > <unset> * --no-rebase merge --ff > only * --no-rebase merge --ff[2] > false * --no-rebase merge --no-ff > true * --no-rebase merge --ff > > <unset> * --rebase rebase > only * --rebase rebase[2] > false * --rebase ?[2] > true * --rebase ?[2] > > * * --ff-only fast-forward only[1] > > * <unset> --no-ff merge --no-ff > * false --no-ff merge --no-ff > * !false --no-ff rebase (ignore --no-ff)[2][3] > > * <unset> --ff merge --ff > * false --ff merge --ff > * !false --ff rebase (ignore --ff)[2][3] > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq7dhrtrc2.fsf@gitster.g/ > https://lore.kernel.org/git/c62933fb-96b2-99f5-7169-372f486f6e39@xxxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpmvn5ukj.fsf@gitster.g/ > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8s2b489p.fsf@gitster.g/ > > It appears you, Phillip, and I all had different opinions about > correct behavior and in a few cases though the documentation clearly > implied what we thought. So, I'd have to say the documentation is > rather unclear as well. However, even if the above table is filled > out, it may be complicated enough that I'm at a bit of a loss about > how to update the documentation to explain it short of including the > table in the documentation. Yeah, now you are starting to see the problem. How many more failed attempts do you need to go through before accepting that the approach you thought was feasible is in fact not feasible? The solution is simple and self-documenting: pull.mode={fast-forward,merge,rebase} -- Felipe Contreras
