On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:48:46PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > My interest in all of the proposed git-pull-training-wheel patches is
> > > that they give users a way to set a finger-breaking configuration that
> > > makes pull a no-op (or slows it down, like 'rm -i …').  Then folks who
> > > compulsively run 'git pull' (e.g. because SVN habits die slowly) can
> > > set an option that gives them something to think about before going
> > > ahead and running the pull anyway.
> > 
> > Actually, what do we think about an -i/--interactive flag (with an
> > associated pull.interactive boolean config to setup global/per-repo
> > defaults)?  Then after the fetch, you'd get one of the following:
> > 
> >   Merge $count commits from $repository $refspec into $current_branch?
> >   Rebase $count commits from $current_branch onto $repository $refpec?
> Not much interactivity in those options. Maybe --prompt would make more
> sense.

I think matching rm, mv, cp, etc. is good, but I'd be ok with

> >   Fast-forward $current_branch by $count commits to $repository $refpec?
> Why would anyone say 'no' to this one?

Because the want explicit merges when they bring in topic branches?

> > and have a chance to bail out if you saw:
> > 
> >   Merge 1003 commits from git://example.net/main.git master into my-feature?
> > 
> > because you forgot which branch you were on.
> Yes, that might be nice. But we still need to change the defaults.

So I should submit an orthogonal patch with -i/--interative/--prompt?


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