On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:41:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > brian m. carlson wrote: > > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:00:05PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > Also, deprecate --no-rebase since there's no need for it any more. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/git-pull.txt | 8 ++++++-- > > > git-pull.sh | 10 +++++++++- > > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-pull.txt b/Documentation/git-pull.txt > > > index 9a91b9f..767bca3 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/git-pull.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/git-pull.txt > > > @@ -127,8 +127,12 @@ It rewrites history, which does not bode well when > > > you > > > published that history already. Do *not* use this option > > > unless you have read linkgit:git-rebase[1] carefully. > > > > > > ---no-rebase:: > > > - Override earlier --rebase. > > > +-m:: > > > +--merge:: > > > + Force a merge. > > > ++ > > > +See `pull.mode`, `branch.<name>.pullmode` in linkgit:git-config[1] if > > > you want > > > +to make `git pull` always use `--merge`. > > > > So I'm confused here, and maybe you can enlighten me. As I read this > > documentation, --merge would always force a merge, like --no-ff. If so, > > I don't see an option to preserve the existing behavior, which is the > > I-don't-care-just-do-it case. If the behavior is different, then this > > documentation needs to be improved, I think, along with the > > documentation earlier in the series. > > I don't understand what is your point. > > So basically you think these should be the same? > > % git pull --merge --no-merge --rebase --no-rebase > % git pull
My point is that it's unclear to me what options I need to use to retain the current behavior (fast-forward if possible, merge otherwise) without a warning. Right now, it looks like --merge is equivalent to --no-ff, which seems silly, since we already have an option for that. So my request is that you add an option (command-line and configuration) that maintains the current behavior, or if there's already such an option, that the documentation be clear enough so that I can figure it out. Because right now, it's not. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
