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

[Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Philippe Vaucher
<philippe.vaucher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In any case, I think your proposal makes it even worse than the current
>> state, and you should aim higher.
>
> Why worse? I'd understand if you said it's doesn't improve it enough
> for it to be worth the change tho.

I think that's what "you should aim higher" means.

> Anyway, my proposal was to get a discussion going, and I'm all for
> aiming higher if there's a way. What do you propose instead? You
> seemed to imply we'd remove --soft and --merge, and make --keep as an
> option for --hard but named differently, something like
> --keep-changes. Maybe I didn't fully understand.

I think there are too many scripts dependent on these switches to
remove them.  But I love the direction you're going in.

Aim higher.

> Mathieu even suggested that it'd have the behavior of --keep by
> default, and that you have to add --force to get today's --hard
> behavior, which sounds like a good idea to me (avoid destructive
> behavior by default).

Think outside the "reset" command.  Like this:

>From the "most popular" comment on http://progit.org/2011/07/11/reset.html:
> I remember them as:
> --soft      -> git uncommit
> --mixed  -> git unadd
> --hard     -> git undo

I don't particular like these names, but conceptually they are helpful.

What other commands can we embellish or create to replace the overload
git-reset functionality?

How about:
  --soft: git checkout -B <commit>
  --mixed: git reset -- <paths>
  --hard:  git checkout --clean

Phil