On 16/07/2021 20:56, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Martin wrote:
On 13/07/2021 18:02, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Martin wrote
You and I will make the connection between "something happens to the
branch" and "something happens to the commits".
A lot of people with less experience, who a busy looking through lots of
stuff to solve their problem, they will not make that connection in that
particular moment.
Heck, I've seen highly educated people missing far more obvious things
like that.
Once again I'm not talking about what they could miss, I'm talking about
what they are thinking the command will do.
Well they think it creates a new branch with the given name. And that is
*all* they think.
No. You are avoiding the question.
I did not avoid it. I answered it, as I understood it. Seems your
question was not very clear.
-c creates a new branch. Obviously -C creates a new branch too.
Once again, *why* would they pick -C over -c? What do they think it will
do differently?
They think: it makes go away that error message. They can use that
branchname.
What they do not think is: If I take away the old branch name, what
happens to the commits in it?
I know, you firmly believe everyone must surely make that conclusion.
But that fails several times..
1) It assumes everyone has enough knowledge to make that conclusion.
While I agree: "they should", I acknowledge they might not.
But, ok. lets say: "there fault". And we don't give a sh*t if others get
into problem, because they did not read lots of pages and memorized
every detail...e
2) It assumes the can.
I.e. they have the experience and skill to make the connection. Ok,
probably 99% can do.
3) It assumes they do (the attempt to make a connection)
And this is my point. Many people will not attempt to think ahead.
People at that moment think about the branch, and the branch only. Many
will not an all think about commits.
And why would they. In git there are plenty of situations where you can
delete a branch, without loosing anything else (i.e. without loosing
commits), because there is an upstream or another local branch.
Until they day that you pick a branch where there is no safety net.
Bothering 99.99% of users with a useless warning just because one (who
is not the sharpest pencil in the box) might make a mistake is just not
wise.
Well, I see you did a survey over a representative group of randomly
picked people?
Well, yes I cannot tell you any final number. But from what I observed
from those people that I know, there a quite a few how mistook that
documentation.
Many (almost most) of those where lucky, in that they had yet only done
it, when indeed it was safe. But upon question they were surprised that
it could have gone another way.
Yes that is not representative. But even if I say that in real live the
quota of such misunderstanding is at only 10% of what I saw, that would
be a considerable total.
That being said, we don't have to agree. And we don't have to
continuously discuss forever. At some point you need to send a new
version of your patch, and I think that point is long past due.
Yes but part of this has been educative.
(and some of it a bit of fun too)
And I said I will.
But right now, I have things in my live, that prevent me from doing so
immediately.
They should prevent me from spending time on those mails too, but I
can't always withstand - so some shortened nights ahead.
I will look at sending a patch, when I have good time to do so without
being in any rush.
