Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction
From: John Keeping <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:25
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:01:39PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
John Keeping [off-list ref] writes:quoted
I have to wonder how often "git pull" with no arguments actually does what users really want (even if they don't know it!) when it doesn't result in a fast-forward (and pull.rebase isn't configured).If you are in a totally centralized shared repository mindset without using topic branch workflow, --first-parent would not help you. In your history the second parent is more likely to be the mainline. So for them "git pull" that either fast-forward when it can, or makes a merge that records the then-current state of the central shared repository, is perfectly sensible. They will view gitk and see all the changes, "git shortlog" and "git log --no-merges" will give them what they expect.
Yes, but for people used to a cleaner history it's confusing to see the
mainline branch and one small change the wrong way round. When I see
people doing this, it's normally something like:
... do some work for several hours...
git commit -a
git push
# fails because it's not a fast forward
git pull
git push
In this scenario, just adding --rebase to "git pull" actually results in
a much more sensible history.
quoted
Hence my suggestion to error when "git pull" doesn't result in a fast-forward and no branch name is specified. We could give some advice like: Your local changes are not included in the local branch and you haven't told Git how to preserve them. If you want to rebase your changes onto the modified upstream branch, run: git pull --rebaseI can parse the first paragraph above, but cannot make much sense out of it. Unless you are talking about local changes that are not committed yet, that is. But in that case I fail to see what it has to do with the current discussion, or suggestion to use rebase.
This isn't about "swap parents", it's about helping people realise that just "git pull" isn't necessarily the best thing for them to do, and that they may want --rebase. So I was asking if it would be sensible (possibly in Git 2.0) to make git-pull pass --ff-only to git-merge by default.