"W. Trevor King" [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
easy with "git pull", a person who is new to Git may not realize
that the project s/he is interacting with may prefer "rebase"
workflow.
Or they may not even realize that they've just merged an unrelated
branch at all, dragging in a thousand unrelated commits which they
accidentally push to a central repository without looking,
contaminating future branches based on the central repostitory without
drastic rebase surgery ;). I just saw one of these earlier this week.
I don't understand how the change would solve this. If "pull" would drag
a lot of commits in the current branch, the "rebase" will rebase the
current branch on a totally different history, and pushing the result
would be equally bad.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:34:53AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
"W. Trevor King" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
easy with "git pull", a person who is new to Git may not realize
that the project s/he is interacting with may prefer "rebase"
workflow.
Or they may not even realize that they've just merged an unrelated
branch at all, dragging in a thousand unrelated commits which they
accidentally push to a central repository without looking,
contaminating future branches based on the central repostitory without
drastic rebase surgery ;). I just saw one of these earlier this week.
I don't understand how the change would solve this. If "pull" would drag
a lot of commits in the current branch, the "rebase" will rebase the
current branch on a totally different history, and pushing the result
would be equally bad.
I want the warning that they had not made the required config choice
between rebase/merge needed to handle a non-ff case, not the default
merge (or rebase) behavior. The warning gives them a chance to
realize that this was not an appropriate time for a `svn update`
analog, and that the project may not to want to have the branches
joined at all ;).
Cheers,
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy