Hi, On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:55:49PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >> ... > >> > [PATCH] git-explain > >> > ... > >> > >> What about calling it git-whatsup instead? > > > > No, clearly it should be git-wtf. > > Should I take these responses to mean that you two are negative > about the approach [...] I think they just were in the mood for some slashdot style unimportant-aspects-in-a-funny-way discussion. > An issue with this approach is that this can be the beginning of > hardwiring the official "right way of doing things" in the set > of tools. Pursuing this approach would enhance the set of state > markers like "FAILED_MERGE" in the example, which means: > > - more commands would actively record what they were attempting > to do, obviously; ... which is a good thing. > - over time "git explain" will learn about these state markers, > and we would hardwire the "best current practice" exits from > various states in the help messages; ... which is also a good thing. > - also commands other than "git explain" would learn about the > state markers of other commands, and change their behaviour. > For example, "git am" might learn to refuse running while a > merge in progress much earlier than with the current > implementation. If the other commands are outside of git, it will be a problem. > The last point [git-am refusing to run during a merge] can easily become > a double-edged sword. This particular behaviour seems like a good thing, too! > Hardwiring the recommended workflow in the tools would reduce chances of > mistakes, but it could rob the flexibility from them if we are not > careful and forget to take into account some useful combination of tools > when adding such safety valves. As has been the case not at all long ago, a saftey valve which no longer made sense was just removed. As for the inflexibility of a recommended workflow: by now, long-time gitsters have had enough time to fiddle around with git and to develop a workflow which Just Works. It is just a nice gesture of old-time users towards new-time users to pass that knowledge. And new-time users are often not in the least interested in learning the ropes the hard way. Besides, the recommended workflow(s) can be changed/replaced by other porcelainish commands, because only those will contain the safety valves, right? Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html