David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> "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. >>> >>> Huh. >>> >>> <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/242744> >> >> 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 index > 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 have > not yet seen anything I would 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 (I added this step later, since it was implied but not explicit) - you do 'git reset', intending 'git reset --mixed' (because that is the 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] [<commit>] [--] <paths>... git reset (--patch | -p) [<commit>] [--] [<paths>...] 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. 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 to this use case; I'll just accept that resetting the index is a useful 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 <commit> and HEAD". "<commit>" 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! -- -- 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