From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stupid git! Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:38:47 +0300 Message-ID: <834mix9l3s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20150912101514.GA2322@acm.fritz.box> <877fnvn9nh.fsf@foo.bar.baz> <20150912130255.GF2322@acm.fritz.box> <83egi3brbw.fsf@gnu.org> <20150912203658.GA3711@acm.fritz.box> <55F48E7F.40602@yandex.ru> <20150912215114.GB3711@acm.fritz.box> <20150914102158.GA3208@acm.fritz.box> <877fntway6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83d1xl9osa.fsf@gnu.org> <8737yhw5gp.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83a8sp9nxr.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4g9uq0c.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442237950 3939 80.91.229.3 (14 Sep 2015 13:39:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, sven.axelsson@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 14 15:39:03 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbTyH-0006bj-6b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:39:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40808 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbTyG-0003gi-NF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:39:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49065) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbTyB-0003dq-M7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:38:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbTyA-0007Jh-Lq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:38:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout26.012.net.il ([80.179.55.182]:46738) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbTy6-0007Gk-Gg; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:38:50 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout26.012.net.il by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NUO00O005RU8K00@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:41:14 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NUO00FGH60QNA80@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:41:14 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87y4g9uq0c.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:189941 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: acm@muc.de, sven.axelsson@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:47:15 +0200 > > >> >> Pulling is not a really good thing to do if you have uncommitted work. > >> > > >> > I'm doing it all the time, and have yet to report a single problem. > >> > > >> > It's the simplest way of minimizing the probability of spurious > >> > merges, when someone else pushes before you. > >> > >> Nope. The simplest way is to git fetch rather than git pull. > > > > How is using 2 commands instead of one, and learning an additional > > command, simpler? > > The "simplest way of minimizing the probability of spurious merges" is > not to execute commands doing possibly unintended merges. If your recipe would have been "don't use pull", it would have been simpler. But that's not what it says, it says "use fetch and merge instead", which is definitely not simpler. > If you insist on only ever using git pull, it also has an option > --ff-only which will refuse to do anything non-trivial. At the cost of having to learn the option. Not simpler. > >> > If you commit then pull, and someone else pushed in between, you > >> > will get that "merged branch master" thing. > >> > >> It that's not what you want, git pull -r will rebase just fine. > > > > We've concluded long ago that "pull --rebase" is trouble when you > > merge from and to feature branches, so I'm trying to stay away of that > > path. > > That's ridiculous. What we have concluded is that setting --rebase as a > default was not likely a good idea because of feature branches. But it > is quite absurd not to use the option for those cases where you indeed > want a rebase instead of a merge commit. It's not absurd when you take muscle memory into consideration. We are talking here about routine operations (since you don't know in advance whether a pull will cause conflicts or a need to merge), not about an option to be used in specific rare circumstances.