From: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, git@matthieu-moy.fr, christiwald@gmail.com,
john@keeping.me.uk, philipoakley@iee.email,
phillip.wood123@gmail.com, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remote: advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 22:09:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMMLpeR9yLA3zM0GfTMhuFa8HW5fDCRBN7Gnft6Mof59Tk7i0Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo7khupjh.fsf@gitster.g>
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:18 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Just to be sure that we're on the same page, when I said "I thought we
> > just agreed that we don't need to mention force-pushing..." and you
> > replied "I do not think so", were you only saying that you think that
> > changes to `git commit` are essential, or were you also saying that we
> > have not come to an agreement about whether to include force-pushing
> > advice in this message?
>
> None of the above ;-)
>
> With that "I do not think so", I meant that I do not agree with "I
> guess you're saying that we'd still be over-encouraging `git pull`"
> that was in your message. In the message you were responding to, I
> was saying that the time the user runs `git commit` is not a good
> time for the user to decide how to eventually update the remote
> target, and it does not matter which one we encourage more between
> "`git pull [--rebase]` then `git push`" and "`git push --force`".
>
> I am fine dropping patch [1/2]; we would not be touching output from
> "git status", "git commit", or "git checkout", and "we should not
> talk about 'git pull' (or how the eventual remote update should go,
> for that matter) when we notice that the base of the user's branch
> has become stale" becomes totally out of the scope of this topic. I
> think that we all are in agreement that [2/2] is the more important
> part of this topic, as it more directly improves the guidance for
> the end-users when their "push" triggers the non-ff check.
Thanks for the clarification. This all started because of the message
in `git status`, so despite it being the less important message, I
feel pretty strongly that that message does need to be toned down
slightly. There's also the problem of that message assuming that `git
pull` will do a merge when it can do either a merge or a rebase,
depending on the user's Git config.
I've already written a patch to suppress the irrelevant advice in `git
commit`, so I might as well send it. I'm hoping that we can agree to
make a few tweaks to these advice messages without going as far as I
originally proposed.
-Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-13 4:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-02 20:08 [PATCH 0/2] advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation Alex Henrie
2023-07-02 20:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] remote: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-02 20:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] push: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-03 15:33 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Phillip Wood
2023-07-03 16:26 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-04 21:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-04 22:24 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-05 5:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-06 2:32 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-04 19:47 ` [PATCH v2 " Alex Henrie
2023-07-04 19:47 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] remote: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-04 21:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-04 22:41 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-04 19:47 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] push: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-06 4:01 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] " Alex Henrie
2023-07-06 4:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] remote: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-06 20:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-06 20:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-06 23:23 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-07 17:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-07 17:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-08 18:55 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-09 1:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-10 4:44 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-11 0:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-12 4:47 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-12 15:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-13 4:09 ` Alex Henrie [this message]
2023-07-07 8:48 ` Phillip Wood
2023-07-06 4:01 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] push: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-07 8:49 ` Phillip Wood
2023-07-07 18:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-08 18:56 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-11 18:33 ` Phillip Wood
2023-07-12 4:47 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-12 4:55 ` Alex Henrie
2023-07-07 5:42 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Alex Henrie
2023-07-07 5:42 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] remote: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-07 5:42 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] push: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-13 4:41 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] don't imply that integration is always required before pushing Alex Henrie
2023-07-13 4:41 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] wt-status: don't show divergence advice when committing Alex Henrie
2023-07-13 4:41 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] remote: don't imply that integration is always required before pushing Alex Henrie
2023-07-13 4:41 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] push: " Alex Henrie
2023-07-13 9:51 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] " Phillip Wood
2023-07-13 16:15 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMMLpeR9yLA3zM0GfTMhuFa8HW5fDCRBN7Gnft6Mof59Tk7i0Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alexhenrie24@gmail.com \
--cc=christiwald@gmail.com \
--cc=git@matthieu-moy.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=philipoakley@iee.email \
--cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).