Hi, On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 8:12 PM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> This is the companion of "git switch" and is based on that topic. > >> This command peforms the "checkout paths" from git-checkout, git-reset > >> and also has a third mode to reset only worktree, leaving the index > >> alone. > > > > It does not have to be done now. But I'm just wondering, does anyone > > think adding --dry-run is a good idea? This command is destructive by > > default, so careful people might want it, I dunno. > > Yeah, "give --dry-run for anything potentially destructive" may be a > good general principle, although we'd need to know where to stop. > For example, I am not sure if "git reset --hard -n" would make all > that much sense, as the sole point of running "reset --hard" is "I > made an unrecoverable mess---get me back to a clean and known state > no matter what" and in that context, "let me see which files in the > working tree will be removed and checked out of the tree-ish and > which paths in the index records a different blob than what is in > the tree-ish, before deciding if I still want to stay in the > unrecoverable mess or I want to get out of it" is something you > could request, but at the same time, there is not much point in > actually asking it. Of course, a --dry-run that is not used often > simply because it is not all that useful in practice is fine to have > as long as it works correctly---I am saying that it's not something > I'd personally prioritize myself. > > It would be an excellent addition to "restore-path" (and also to > "checkout [<tree-ish> [--]] pathspec") to give "--dry-run". Not > just because it is destructive, but because unlike "reset --hard", > it is selectively destructive. Having a way to make sure that the > given pathspec touches only the paths that the user intends to > recover from the tree-ish or the index would be valuable. > > But it is a new feature, and I'd think it can (and probably should) > be done as a follow-on series outside the main series you have been > working on. Let's make sure that we have the basics ready by the > end of this cycle. Since this command is supposed to make our not-quite-user-friendly command-line interface a lot more user-friendly, I think that we should take a step back and think very hard about a way to make this recoverable an action. The recently discussed project to make `git stash` handle unmerged index entries should be a good step in that direction. And I do not think that it would make a lot of sense to advance this feature prematurely, i.e. without this safety hatch firmly in place. Ciao, Dscho
