Matthias Baumgarten wrote:
> On 7/16/21 9:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > 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]
>
> What about
>
> * !false --ff-only ???
>
> I think these are conflicting options, see [ ] (the ref without a
> number). This feels like saying oh, I want to rebase, but I want to
> fast-forward. What should happen with my local changes then? Could one
> argue that this should lead to the local changes being rebased on top of
> the remote?
According to the above it would be a fast-forward only, because:
* * --ff-only fast-forward only
So the pull would abort f you have local changes.
--
Felipe Contreras
