Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:11:05PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > If we step back a bit, because we are forcing him to differentiate >> > these two pulls in his mental model anyway, perhaps it may help >> > people (both new and old) if we had a new command to make the >> > distinction stand out more. What if the command sequence were like >> > this instead? >> > >> > $ git checkout maint >> > $ git update [ origin maint ] >> > >> > $ git pull [--no-ff] developer-remote topic-branch >> > $ git push [ origin maint ] >> > >> > where the new command 'update' enforces the '--ff-only' update. And >> > then we would stop telling "'git pull' first" when a push does not >> > fast-forward. >> >> In addition to barf when it's not a fast-forward, such command can >> switch the parents, so it appears 'maint' was merged to 'origin/maint'. >> Many people have complained about this order. > > I realize this has veered off into talking about an "update" command, > and not necessarily "pull", but since there a lot of proposals floating > around, I wanted to make one point: if we are going to do such a switch, > let's please make it something the user explicitly turns on.
A safety catch defaulting to a factory position of "off" is not going to stop inexperienced people from shooting themselves in the foot. -- David Kastrup -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
