Re: Re: Why the default action for pull is merge, but not rebase?

Eugene Sajine wrote:

So, I just have to run git pull --rebase to get my scenario working, right?

Maybe the “[branch "<name>"] rebase” and “[branch] autosetuprebase”
configuration items could help.

On 11:59 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Eugene Sajine wrote:

quoted

So, I just have to run git pull --rebase to get my scenario working, right?

Maybe the “[branch "<name>"] rebase” and “[branch] autosetuprebase”
configuration items could help.

One frustrating aspect of branch.<name>.rebase is that AFAIK
there's no way for it to preserve merges.

I would much prefer if branch.<name>.rebase was allowed to
specify the arguments to be passed to rebase:

	git config branch.mybranch.rebase "-i --preserve-merges"

Anyone else see the value of something like this?

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Raible
Date: 10/27/2010 1:30 PM

One frustrating aspect of branch.<name>.rebase is that AFAIK
there's no way for it to preserve merges.

I would much prefer if branch.<name>.rebase was allowed to
specify the arguments to be passed to rebase:

	git config branch.mybranch.rebase "-i --preserve-merges"

Anyone else see the value of something like this?

When --preserve-merges actually preserves the merges (perhaps the 
rebase-i-p branch is on the way to finishing this feature??  I couldn't 
get it to apply...), I would like this facility very much.  By default, 
I think rebase *should* preserve merges, and the current flattening it 
does now should be an option.

Josh

On Oct 27, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Joshua Jensen wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Raible
Date: 10/27/2010 1:30 PM

quoted

One frustrating aspect of branch.<name>.rebase is that AFAIK
there's no way for it to preserve merges.

I would much prefer if branch.<name>.rebase was allowed to
specify the arguments to be passed to rebase:

	git config branch.mybranch.rebase "-i --preserve-merges"

Anyone else see the value of something like this?

When --preserve-merges actually preserves the merges (perhaps the rebase-i-p branch is on the way to finishing this feature??  I couldn't get it to apply...), I would like this facility very much.  By default, I think rebase *should* preserve merges, and the current flattening it does now should be an option.

Sure would be nice, but that sort of backwards-incompatible change would likely break a lot of people who rely on the current flattening behavior.

-Kevin Ballard

On 10/27/2010 8:27 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

On Oct 27, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Joshua Jensen wrote:

quoted

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Raible
Date: 10/27/2010 1:30 PM

quoted

I would much prefer if branch.<name>.rebase was allowed to
specify the arguments to be passed to rebase:

	git config branch.mybranch.rebase "-i --preserve-merges"

Anyone else see the value of something like this?

When --preserve-merges actually preserves the merges (perhaps the rebase-i-p branch is on the way to finishing this feature??  I couldn't get it to apply...), I would like this facility very much.  By default, I think rebase *should* preserve merges, and the current flattening it does now should be an option.

Sure would be nice, but that sort of backwards-incompatible change would likely break a lot of people who rely on the current flattening behavior.

-Kevin Ballard.

But it's not backwards incompatible: only true/false are now
allowed so an arbitrary string would not currently be used.

In my proposal a string would imply true, and would mean
"append the specified value when running rebase".

On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Eric Raible wrote:

On 10/27/2010 8:27 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

quoted

On Oct 27, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Joshua Jensen wrote:

quoted

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Raible
Date: 10/27/2010 1:30 PM

quoted

I would much prefer if branch.<name>.rebase was allowed to
specify the arguments to be passed to rebase:

	git config branch.mybranch.rebase "-i --preserve-merges"

Anyone else see the value of something like this?

When --preserve-merges actually preserves the merges (perhaps the rebase-i-p branch is on the way to finishing this feature??  I couldn't get it to apply...), I would like this facility very much.  By default, I think rebase *should* preserve merges, and the current flattening it does now should be an option.

Sure would be nice, but that sort of backwards-incompatible change would likely break a lot of people who rely on the current flattening behavior.

-Kevin Ballard.

But it's not backwards incompatible: only true/false are now
allowed so an arbitrary string would not currently be used.

In my proposal a string would imply true, and would mean
"append the specified value when running rebase".

Sorry, I meant making it the default would be a backwards-incompatible change.

-Kevin Ballard

Eric Raible [off-list ref] wrote:

On 11:59 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

quoted

Maybe the "[branch "<name>"] rebase" and "[branch] autosetuprebase"
configuration items could help.

One frustrating aspect of branch.<name>.rebase is that AFAIK
there's no way for it to preserve merges.

I would much prefer if branch.<name>.rebase was allowed to
specify the arguments to be passed to rebase:

  git config branch.mybranch.rebase "-i --preserve-merges"

For me it would be good enough if there were some way of making
"pull --rebase" error out in the case that merges are involved.  I'll
then either do a pull --no-rebase, or deal with the situation in some
other way; but getting the merge "flattened" by "git pull" without being
told about it is what's frustrating to me.


-- 
Stefan Haller
Berlin, Germany
http://www.haller-berlin.de/