From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Leake Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Make git more user-friendly during a merge conflict Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:13:52 -0600 Message-ID: <858usvz5nj.fsf@stephe-leake.org> References: <1393437985-31401-1-git-send-email-andrew.kw.w@gmail.com> <20140226202601.GK7855@google.com> <857g8f1ugu.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <87fvn335sm.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 28 15:14:06 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJOCS-0007OO-5A for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:14:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752318AbaB1ON6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:13:58 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.227]:24401 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752305AbaB1ON4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:13:56 -0500 Received: from [75.87.81.6] ([75.87.81.6:53938] helo=TAKVER) by cdptpa-oedge01 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 2F/B4-10928-3A990135; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:13:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87fvn335sm.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:11:53 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (windows-nt) X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Stephen Leake writes: > >> I like commands that "do the right thing". So no, this would not be >> confusing. > > I _hate_ commands that think they know better than to do what they are > told. In particular when doing destructive things. And just because > _you_ like them does not mean they are not confusing. Ok, I should have said "not confusing for me". People differ. > In the long run, it is much more confusing if you come to rely on some > commands doing "the right thing" while in other cases, the actually > written thing is done. There should always be the option of telling git exactly what to do. In my emacs front end, the command that "does the right thing" is _called_ "do-the-right-thing". All of the other commands do exactly as told. In this case, it is only "git reset" that would do the right thing, since you did _not_ tell it specifically what to do. Relying on a default is always problematic, in my experience; I much prefer "no default" to "a default that people voted on 10 years ago, and now we are stuck with it". > "do the right thing" commands also tend to do the wrong thing > occasionally with potentially disastrous results when they are used in > scripts where the followup actions rely on the actual result. That is bad, and should not be allowed. On the other hand, I have yet to see an actual use case of bad behavior in this discussion. -- -- Stephe