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: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 04:32:29 -0600 Message-ID: <85vbvyxl8i.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> <858usvz5nj.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <87txbj1fnw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <85zjlb1740.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <87eh2n16sw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 01 11:32:38 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 1WJhDh-0001r2-HP for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 11:32:37 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752755AbaCAKce convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Mar 2014 05:32:34 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.228]:51591 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750869AbaCAKcd convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Mar 2014 05:32:33 -0500 Received: from [70.94.38.149] ([70.94.38.149:50069] helo=TAKVER) by cdptpa-oedge03 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 89/6D-02678-F37B1135; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 10:32:32 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87eh2n16sw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:33:03 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (windows-nt) X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 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: > >> David Kastrup writes: >> >>> Stephen Leake writes: >>> >>>> David Kastrup writes: >>>> >>>>> "do the right thing" commands also tend to do the wrong thing >>>>> occasionally with potentially disastrous results when they are us= ed >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Huh. >>> >>> >> >> That's about backward incompatibility, which is bad, but not what I = was >> talking about above. > > No, it isn't. I quote: > > I sometimes run "git reset" during a merge to only reset the inde= x > and then examine the changes introduced by the merge. With your > changes, someone doing so would abort the merge and discard the > merge resolution. I very rarely do this, but even rarely, I > wouldn't like Git to start droping data silently for me ;-). > > You should not make statements like "I have yet to see an actual use > case of bad behavior in this discussion" when you actually mean "I=C2= =A0have > not yet seen anything I=C2=A0would be interested in doing myself". Clearly I misunderstood your point. Merely repeating the same statement that I misunderstood, and adding a misunderstanding of what I said, is not helpful. So let me see if I can expand on your use case: - you do 'git merge', which results in conflicts - you edit some workspace files to resolve some of those conflicts=20 (I added this step later, since it was implied but not explicit) - you do 'git reset', intending 'git reset --mixed' (because that is th= e current default) Actually, I can't find a precise definition of 'git reset'. Here is the synopsis from the man page for 'git-reset' (from git 1.7.9): git reset [-q] [] [--] ... git reset (--patch | -p) [] [--] [...] git reset (--soft | --mixed | --hard | --merge | --keep) [-q] [<= commit>] In 'git reset', there is no path, so it must be the second or third form. But those _require_ one of the -- options. So 'git reset' is illegal. Clearly something is wrong here; apparently the third line should be: git reset [--soft | --mixed | --hard | --merge | --keep] [-q] [<= commit>] with '--mixed' as the default, as is stated later. (perhaps the original intent was to not have a default for the third form, but that got changed sometime?). This command "resets the index" but not the working tree. I'm not clear what "reset the index" means here; does it mean "remove all entries from the index", or "reset the index to some previous state"? In other man pages, "reset" can have either meaning depending on context. - then you "examine changes introduced by the merge". I don't know what this means in detail.=20 Before resetting the index, you could diff a workspace file against either HEAD or index. Now you can only diff against HEAD, so I don'= t understand why you wanted to reset the index. That's not relevant t= o this use case; I'll just accept that resetting the index is a usefu= l thing to do here. But I would like to understand why. - with the "do the right thing" patch, 'git reset' does 'git reset --merge' instead That "Resets the index and updates the files in the working tree that are different between and HEAD".=20 "" in this case defaults to HEAD, so the working tree is not changed. So as I understand it, this does _not_ lose your conflict resolutions. In fact, it now seems that 'git reset --mixed' is always the same as 'git reset --merge'. So I must be missing something! --=20 -- Stephe