RE: [PATCH] pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase or to merge

On February 28, 2020 10:04 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

To: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
Cc: Alex Henrie <redacted>; git@vger.kernel.org;
rcdailey.lists@gmail.com; newren@gmail.com; rsbecker@nexbridge.com;
annulen@yandex.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase

or to

merge

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:16:01PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

To
avoid that situation, Git should require users to explicitly specify
whether their primary workflow is a contributor/rebasing workflow or
a maintainer/merging workflow.

There is nothing Git "should" do.  There are things we wish Git did,
and we give orders to the codebase to do so in our proposed log
message.  Perhaps like:

I'd also note that there are some workflows that assume that --rebase is
*never* a good thing, even for contributors.  We can decide whether we
want to bias the git man page in favor of one workflow as opposed to
another, for the sake of new git users, but I don't think it's accurate to

say

(or even imply) that there are only two workflows:
contributor/rebasing and maintainer/merging.

I second this sentiment. The repositories my community (outside my company)
has are typically large (3-5Gb of sources) with 10K-100K individual files.
They all use a */merging paradigm.

Randall