Re: Proposal: create meaningful aliases for git reset's hard/soft/mixed

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I flagged this for followup in my MUA, but I failed to follow-up after
>> the holidays. I apologize for that, and I really regret it because I
>> liked where this was going.
>
> I really regret to see you remembered it, actually.

Having said that, I am glad that you brought the old discussion
thread to our attention.  In

    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/185825/focus=185863,

I said that "git reset --keep" started out as an ugly workaround for
the lack of "git checkout -B $current_branch".  Now we have it, so
we can afford to make "reset --keep" less prominently advertised in
our tool set.  As I already said back then, "reset --soft" also has
outlived its usefulness when "commit --amend" came, so that leaves
only these modes of "reset":

        reset --hard [$commit]
	reset [$commit]
        reset --merge

I am not sure if it makes sense to give a commit different from HEAD
to "reset --merge", and to a lessor degree, "reset --mixed" to flip
the HEAD to another commit while retaining the working tree contents
does not make much sense, either, in a common workflow.

It _might_ be possible to merge the --mixed and --merge if we think
things through to reduce the often-used options even further, but I
haven't done so, and I suspect nobody has (yet).