From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.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: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 13:40:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqo7kobwpj.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqttugbxds.fsf@gitster.g> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2023 13:25:35 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
>> index a81f2e2f17..1fe86f8b23 100644
>> --- a/remote.c
>> +++ b/remote.c
>> @@ -2323,7 +2323,10 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb,
>> base, ours, theirs);
>> if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_STATUS_HINTS))
>> strbuf_addstr(sb,
>> - _(" (use \"git pull\" to merge the remote branch into yours)\n"));
>> + _(" (To reconcile your local changes with the work at the remote, you can\n"
>> + " use 'git pull' and then 'git push'. To discard the work at the remote\n"
>> + " and replace it with what you did (alone), you can use\n"
>> + " 'git push --force'.)\n"));
>> }
>
> Since wt-status.c:wt_longstatus_print_tracking() calls this
> function, I would expect that this change would manifest as test
> breakage in "git status" (or "git commit" whose commit log edit
> buffer is examined) tests. Are we lacking test coverage?
The other callsite of format_tracking_info() is "git checkout".
When you start working on your own topic forked from upstream by
switching to it, if Git notices that your topic's base has become
behind (so that you would later need to merge or rebase to avoid
losing others' work), the "git pull" message is given to tell you
that it is OK if you want to catch up first before working on it.
But the new message does not fit well in the workflow. It is
primarily targetted for the users who are about to push out. They
are at the point where they are way before being ready to "discard
the work at the remote".
I guess the updated message in the context of "git status" has
exactly the same issue. The user is about to make a commit, which
will later be pushed out.
So, while I agree that new users may need to be made aware of
situations where they should not afraid of overwriting the remote
repository by forcing a non-ff push, I am not sure if this is a good
advice message to convey it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-06 20:40 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 [this message]
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
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=xmqqo7kobwpj.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=alexhenrie24@gmail.com \
--cc=christiwald@gmail.com \
--cc=git@matthieu-moy.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--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).