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 ;).


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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to