Re: [PATCH/RFC] git-post: the opposite of git-cherry-pick

[Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>]

Am 13.10.2017 um 12:51 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
> On Thu, Oct 05 2017, Johannes Sixt jotted:
>> Am 05.10.2017 um 21:33 schrieb Stefan Beller:
>>> * Is it a good design choice to have a different command, just because the
>>>     target branch is [not] checked out?
>>
>> I would not want to make it a sub-mode of cherry-pick, if that is what
>> you mean, because "cherry picking" is about getting something, not
>> giving something away.
> 
> It occurs to me that a better long-term UI design might be to make
> git-{cherry-pick,pick) some sort of submodes for git-commit.

I don't quite agree. To commit an index state that is derived from a 
worktree state is such a common and important operation that it deserves 
to be its own command. Adding different modi operandi would make it 
confusing.

> Right now git-commit picks the current index for committing, but "use a
> patch as the source instead" could be a submode.
> 
> Right now it commits that change on top of your checked out commit, but
> "other non-checked-out target commit" could be a mode instead,
> i.e. exposing more of the power of the underlying git-commit-tree.

This is worth discussing, though not my preference. The picture to "pick 
cherries" has become quite common, and now that we use it for the name 
of the command, "cherry-pick", the direction of flow is quite obvious 
and strongly implied: from somewhere else to me (and not to somebody else).

> [Not entirely serious]. Well if cherry-picking is taking a thing and
> eating it here, maybe git-cherry-puke takes an already digested thing
> and "throws" it elsewhere ?:)
> 
> It's a silly name but it's somewhat symmetric :)

One of the decisions to be made is whether to begin the new command with 
"git-cherry-" or not, because it introduces a new abiguity for command 
line completion.

-- Hannes