Am 13.10.2017 um 12:51 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
On Thu, Oct 05 2017, Johannes Sixt jotted:
Am 05.10.2017 um 21:33 schrieb Stefan Beller:
* Is it a good design choice to have a different command, just because the
target branch is [not] checked out?
I would not want to make it a sub-mode of cherry-pick, if that is what
you mean, because "cherry picking" is about getting something, not
giving something away.
It occurs to me that a better long-term UI design might be to make
git-{cherry-pick,pick) some sort of submodes for git-commit.
I don't quite agree. To commit an index state that is derived from a
worktree state is such a common and important operation that it deserves
to be its own command. Adding different modi operandi would make it
confusing.
Right now git-commit picks the current index for committing, but "use a
patch as the source instead" could be a submode.
Right now it commits that change on top of your checked out commit, but
"other non-checked-out target commit" could be a mode instead,
i.e. exposing more of the power of the underlying git-commit-tree.
This is worth discussing, though not my preference. The picture to "pick
cherries" has become quite common, and now that we use it for the name
of the command, "cherry-pick", the direction of flow is quite obvious
and strongly implied: from somewhere else to me (and not to somebody else).
[Not entirely serious]. Well if cherry-picking is taking a thing and
eating it here, maybe git-cherry-puke takes an already digested thing
and "throws" it elsewhere ?:)
It's a silly name but it's somewhat symmetric :)
One of the decisions to be made is whether to begin the new command with
"git-cherry-" or not, because it introduces a new abiguity for command
line completion.
-- Hannes
