On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:34:53AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> writes: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature