On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 6:55 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 7:38 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > I agree, showing this message in the middle of `git commit` is not > >> > ideal. However, that's a separate issue that can be fixed later; it's > >> > not part of the problem I'm trying to solve in this series. > >> > >> That is debatable. Even "by the way you can pull and reconcile > >> early before you have fully finished working on the topic and are > >> ready to push back" is irrelevant during `git commit`. "Reconciling > >> the differences is not the only way to deal with divergence; you may > >> decide to simply discard what they have with push --force" is even > >> less relevant at that time. So it seems to be very much an integral > >> part of the problem you are tackling, at least to me. > > > > I thought we just agreed that we don't need to mention force-pushing > > in this particular message? I guess you're saying that we'd still be > > over-encouraging `git pull` if we don't remove this message from `git > > commit` altogether? > > I do not think so. > > I was saying that, when the user during `git commit` is wondering > what to write in the log message of the commit they are working on > (which may not yet make the current branch ready to be pushed to or > integrated with the remote), the user is not ready to even choose > between "forcing push to overwrite" and "integrate and then push". > > It can be fixed later, but it is a part of "how to avoid giving > confusing message to users, especially the new ones" theme. After > all, "do not make it sound like they always have to integrate" is > how you started this journey, no? To me, one of those things is bad advice, and the other is irrelevant advice. They're both confusing, but one of them is more likely to cause trouble than the other. Omitting this message from `git commit` isn't technically difficult, my main worry is that that change will be picked to death in code review and it will hold up the more important changes. I have to find time for Git outside of work and I'm already feeling pretty burned out trying to communicate the problem and integrate the feedback on this series so far. Even so, because it's important to you, and because I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this problem, I'm willing to take a stab at fixing both the bad advice and the irrelevant advice in the same series. Just to be sure that we're on the same page, when I said "I thought we just agreed that we don't need to mention force-pushing..." and you replied "I do not think so", were you only saying that you think that changes to `git commit` are essential, or were you also saying that we have not come to an agreement about whether to include force-pushing advice in this message? Thanks, -Alex
