From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Haberman Subject: Re: pull --preserve-merges Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:57:10 -0600 Organization: Exigence Message-ID: <20081108115710.7f501aa9.stephen@exigencecorp.com> References: <20081107160138.aa96405c.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <200811081807.53199.fg@one2team.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Francis Galiegue X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Nov 08 18:58:37 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kys4v-00019g-Dj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:58:33 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752014AbYKHR5O (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:57:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751272AbYKHR5O (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:57:14 -0500 Received: from smtp182.sat.emailsrvr.com ([66.216.121.182]:57650 "EHLO smtp182.sat.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbYKHR5N (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:57:13 -0500 Received: from relay8.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay8.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 297A411B0BF0; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by relay8.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: stephen-AT-exigencecorp.com) with ESMTP id A1FB511B0BEC; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:57:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200811081807.53199.fg@one2team.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Replying to both Johannes and Francis... > > > Awhile ago I brought up wanting to have a "rebase with preserve merges" > > > option for `git pull` > > > > That might be something you want, but you cannot call it > > > > git pull --preserve-merges > > > > since everybody used to "pull = fetch && merge" would go "Huh? A merge > > _does_ preserve merges". Ah, right, sorry, Johannes, I know it only makes sense in the context if --rebase is also being in use, I was just being too brief. > > If at all, you could call it "--rebase=preserve-merges". I'd be fine with that, I had not thought of it. > Why not --rebase --keep-merges? Personnally, I think it makes things clearer > since in general options are either standalone or have a value. I originally had --rebase --preserve-merges in mind because it matches the existing -p/--preserve-merges flag that git rebase has that I'd like git pull to just pass along. If they were separate flags, passing just --preserve-merges without --rebase should likely report an error. Probably the same thing if someone sets `branch.name.preservemerges` but `branch.name.rebase` is not set. Unless instead of separate config parameters, `branch.name.rebase` uses Johannes's suggestion and has separate values...true or false or preserve-merges. That would probably better parallelize with the --rebase=preserve-merges style command line argument. Between one flag/config parameter or two flags/config parameters, I could go either way and would be willing to patch together either one to get it in. Thanks, Stephen