Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, しらいしななこ wrote:

quoted

Quoting Andreas Ericsson [off-list ref]:

quoted

"git pull --rebase" already has an implementation. Dscho cooked one up
which I've been using since then. It works nicely.

What is the reason that the option was not added to the official git?  
Was it coded poorly, buggy or were there some other issues?

It is very well possible that it was coded poorly ;-)

The main reason, I believe, was that some old-timers who know the 
implications said that it would encourage a wrong workflow.  One thing 
that could go possibly wrong, for example, is to rebase commits that you 
already published.

So AFAICT it was deemed not only giving people rope, but making that rope 
look like a necklace to them.

Hmph, that is different from how I remember, and the "workflow" argument
would not be something I would make if we were having that discussion
today.

I think what happened was that we took a misguided detour to make this
an option to "git merge" (which was _my_ mistake IIRC, sorry), which did
not pan out well (because rebase is not "a different form of merge").
After that for some reason we failed to follow-up on the topic.  We
could have gone back to the original "a pull is integrating following a
fetch, and the integration does not have to be merge" approach to see if
it was workable, but we didn't.

If people find it useful, I do not think of a huge reason to object to
the inclusion.  "Give them rope" is good ;-)

Hi,

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, しらいしななこ wrote:

quoted

Quoting Andreas Ericsson [off-list ref]:

quoted

"git pull --rebase" already has an implementation. Dscho cooked one up
which I've been using since then. It works nicely.

What is the reason that the option was not added to the official git?  
Was it coded poorly, buggy or were there some other issues?

It is very well possible that it was coded poorly ;-)

The main reason, I believe, was that some old-timers who know the 
implications said that it would encourage a wrong workflow.  One thing 
that could go possibly wrong, for example, is to rebase commits that you 
already published.

So AFAICT it was deemed not only giving people rope, but making that rope 
look like a necklace to them.

Hmph, that is different from how I remember, and the "workflow" argument
would not be something I would make if we were having that discussion
today.

I think what happened was that we took a misguided detour to make this
an option to "git merge" (which was _my_ mistake IIRC, sorry), which did
not pan out well (because rebase is not "a different form of merge").
After that for some reason we failed to follow-up on the topic.  We
could have gone back to the original "a pull is integrating following a
fetch, and the integration does not have to be merge" approach to see if
it was workable, but we didn't.

If people find it useful, I do not think of a huge reason to object to
the inclusion.  "Give them rope" is good ;-)

FWIW the my last reply in that thread was 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/62382/focus=62405

Ciao,
Dscho