On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble+github@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > "D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble+github@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> So, I dunno. > > > > > > Agreed that if pull.ff=only is supposed to override all other options > > > (except those on the command-line), this might be wrong. And `git pull > > > --rebase` works in the scenario I described. > > > > Yeah, I view --ff-only as a safety measure for the user to say "my > > workflow is to make sure I do not have anything locally cooking on > > my branch when integrating with the other side, and stop me if I > > somehow made a mistake". If rebase or other options override, the > > folks in the rebasing camp, unlike in the merging camp, cannot > > benefit from such safety measure, which worries me. > > Is there, then, an existing combination that means roughly to treat > `git pull` with no other options like this: > - if not rebasing, forbid merging and be equivalent to --ff-only > - if rebasing is requested (because of branch.name.rebase or --rebase > or …?), allow it > > In other words, something like a pull.merge=ff (or ff-only) meaning to > apply the rules I've attempted to describe, in which case I would > leave pull.ff unset? > > I suppose pull.rebase=true is close, but is not quite the same for me > (I'd like to be warned when this would imply a non-fast-forward for a > main branch, though the "rebasing" logs might be sufficient)… FWIW, I found some tests that indicate, to me, that I should use pull.rebase=true (or merges) + branch.<name>.rebase=false for the case I described: https://github.com/git/git/blob/08bdfd453584e489d5a551aecbdcb77584e1b958/t/t5520-pull.sh#L505-L514 So it turns out my itch was already scratched.
