On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:51 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/03/2019 17:24, Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:47 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:16 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 08/03/2019 09:57, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > >>>> "git checkout" doing too many things is a source of confusion for many > >>>> users (and it even bites old timers sometimes). To remedy that, the > >>>> command will be split into two new ones: switch and > >>>> something-to-checkout-paths. > >>> > >>> I think this is a good idea, thanks for working on it. I wonder if it > >>> would be a good idea to have the new command refuse to checkout a new > >>> branch if there is a cherry-pick/revert/merge/rebase in progress (with > >>> an option to override the check) as switching branches in the middle of > >>> one of those is likely to be confusing to users (if I do it it is > >>> normally because I've forgotten that I've not run 'git whatever > >>> --continue'). > >> > >> Interesting. I think this would be a good default if we have an escape > >> hatch (which could even come later). I often wander off to some other > >> branch and go back. But then half the time I end up forgetting I'm in > >> a middle of something and just "git rebase --quit" :P > >> > >> Of course with git-stash (*) and git-worktree, I guess there's little > >> reason to just switch away from a something-in-progress worktree. I'll > >> try to implement this in the next round, unless someone objects. > > > > No objection here; I like this idea. > > Keeping this hunk since it's now relevant to the comment below... > >>>> +-f:: > >>>> +--force:: > >>>> + Proceed even if the index or the working tree differs from > >>>> + HEAD. Both the index and working tree are restored to match > >>>> + the switching target. This is used to throw away local > >>>> + changes. > >>> > >>> I'd always thought that --force meant "throw away my local changes if > >>> they conflict with the new branch" not "throw them away regardless" > >>> (which is better as it is deterministic). Maybe we can come up with a > >>> clearer name here --discard-changes? At the moment --force does not > >>> throw away conflicts properly (see the script below in my comments about > >>> --merge). > >> > >> Yeah if you want to redefine --force, now is a very good time. > >> Personally I'd rather have separate options than the "one catch all" > >> --force (or worse, multiple of --force). I'll leave this for the > >> community to decide. > >> > >> Adding Elijah too. He also had some concern about "git restore > >> --force". Maybe he's interested in this as well. > > > > I like Phillip's suggestion of --discard-changes. I also like how he > > came up with a simple testcase showing one bug each with checkout's > > current -m and -f handling; we should fix those. > > With regard to discarding conflicts, do we want it to clear up any state > associated with the conflicts (like reset)? They rarely happen in > isolation, there's a MERGE_HEAD or CHERRY_PICK_HEAD etc. I'm not sure > what it should do in the middle of a rebase or when cherry-picking a > range of commits. I think it would be surprising if it was the > equivalent of rebase/cherry-pick --quit but just clearing the conflicts > in those contexts may not be very useful in practice. You already suggested above (outside the context of --discard-changes) that we should just error out if there is some special mid-operation state (be it from a merge, cherry-pick, rebase, or bisect). The user can then manually resolve the operation first, or, perhaps use a special override to force the switch command to proceed despite the presence of mid-operation state. Personally, I'm leaning towards --discard-changes operating within that same context; I think that mid-operation special state should require a more explicit and operation-specific step to remove (e.g. rebase --quit).
