Replying to both Johannes and Francis... > > > Awhile ago I brought up wanting to have a "rebase with preserve merges" > > > option for `git pull` > > > > That might be something you want, but you cannot call it > > > > git pull --preserve-merges > > > > since everybody used to "pull = fetch && merge" would go "Huh? A merge > > _does_ preserve merges". Ah, right, sorry, Johannes, I know it only makes sense in the context if --rebase is also being in use, I was just being too brief. > > If at all, you could call it "--rebase=preserve-merges". I'd be fine with that, I had not thought of it. > Why not --rebase --keep-merges? Personnally, I think it makes things clearer > since in general options are either standalone or have a value. I originally had --rebase --preserve-merges in mind because it matches the existing -p/--preserve-merges flag that git rebase has that I'd like git pull to just pass along. If they were separate flags, passing just --preserve-merges without --rebase should likely report an error. Probably the same thing if someone sets `branch.name.preservemerges` but `branch.name.rebase` is not set. Unless instead of separate config parameters, `branch.name.rebase` uses Johannes's suggestion and has separate values...true or false or preserve-merges. That would probably better parallelize with the --rebase=preserve-merges style command line argument. Between one flag/config parameter or two flags/config parameters, I could go either way and would be willing to patch together either one to get it in. Thanks, Stephen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
