David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- 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