{"thread":{"id":"19934","subject":"[RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","startedAt":"2009-06-25T19:22:50Z","lastAt":"2009-06-29T23:21:44Z","messageCount":14,"participants":["Jakub Narebski","Johan Herland","Santi Béjar","Peter Baumann","Felipe Contreras"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"116963","messageId":"200906252122.51737.jnareb@gmail.com","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-06-25T19:22:50Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-25T19:22:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"I have created _proposed_ version of questions for upcoming \n\"Git User's Survey 2009\", based on (a bit of) feedback on git\nmailing list:\n \"[RFH] Questions for Git User's Survey 2009\"\n Msg-Id: <200905291855.03328.jnareb@gmail.com>\n http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/120287\nand comments on #git IRC channel on FreeNode. \n\nCurrent version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to \n60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\nwere also greatly reduced.\n\n\nThe *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\nthe following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n\n http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n\nPlease tell me what you think about questions and about selection\nof possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\nIf you have better idea for theme (mainly background and font \ncolors, and perhaps font size), help would be appreciated. Is it\nbetter to use vertical form everywhere, or should we use horizontal\nlayout of answers for questions with short number of possible\nanswers? How long does it take to fill survey?\n\nATTENTION: All data in test survey would be deleted when survey\nwould start for real!\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\n"},{"id":"117005","messageId":"200906260932.43826.johan@herland.net","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906252122.51737.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Johan Herland","fromEmail":"johan@herland.net","sentAt":"2009-06-26T07:32:43Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T07:32:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johan@herland.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/547031?v=4"},"body":"On Thursday 25 June 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to\n> 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n> were also greatly reduced.\n\nGood. :)\n\n> The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n> the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n>\n> http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n>\n> Please tell me what you think about questions and about selection\n> of possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\n\nThere seems to be some unnecessary overlap among questions 11, 16/17 and 18. \nExamples: I found myself ticking off equivalent options like:\n- 11/gitk, 17/gitk and 18/\"gitk or other history viewer\"\n- 17/\"git gui\" and 18/\"git-gui or other commit tool\"\n- 14/\"via git-bundle\", 15/\"git bundle\", 16/\"git bundle\" and 18/\"git bundle\"\n- 11/StGIT/Guilt/TopGit and 18/\"path management interface\"\n- 17/\"git reflog\" and 18/reflog\n- 17/\"git stash\" and 18/stash\n- 16/\"git difftool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n- 16/\"git mergetool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n- 17/\"git rebase -i\" and 18/\"interactive rebase\"\n- 16/\"git add -i\" and 18/\"interactive commit/...\"\n- 16/\"git filter-branch\", 18/\"git-filter-branch or cg-admin-rewritehist\" and \n18/\"git-filter-branch or equivalent\"\n- 11/\"editor/IDE VC integration\" and 18/\"integration with IDE/editor\"\n\nSome of this overlap is probably unavoidable, but I think some of it \n(especially between 16/17 and 18) can be eliminated without compromising the \nsurvey. Maybe we can integrate the non-overlapping parts of 18 into the \nother questions, thereby further decreasing the number of questions?\n\nBTW, 17 is just a continuation of 16, AFAICS. Is it possible to just repeat \nthe column headers (to break up the table length) and still keep it as one \nquestion?\n\n\nOtherwise, I like the survey very much.\n\n> How long does it take to fill survey?\n\n~ 5-7 minutes\n\n\nThanks for the hard work you put into this. It is appreciated.\n\n\nHave fun! :)\n\n...Johan\n\n-- \nJohan Herland, \nwww.herland.net\n"},{"id":"117006","messageId":"adf1fd3d0906260210n15be0576ofb683df6a1ef454c@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906260932.43826.johan@herland.net","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Santi Béjar","fromEmail":"santi@agolina.net","sentAt":"2009-06-26T09:10:24Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T09:10:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"santi@agolina.net","avatar":null},"body":"2009/6/26 Johan Herland :\n> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n>> Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to\n>> 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n>> were also greatly reduced.\n>\n> Good. :)\n>\n>> The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n>> the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n>>\n>> http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n>>\n>> Please tell me what you think about questions and about selection\n>> of possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\n>\n> There seems to be some unnecessary overlap among questions 11, 16/17 and 18.\n\n[...]\n\n>\n> Some of this overlap is probably unavoidable, but I think some of it\n> (especially between 16/17 and 18) can be eliminated without compromising the\n> survey. Maybe we can integrate the non-overlapping parts of 18 into the\n> other questions, thereby further decreasing the number of questions?\n>\n> BTW, 17 is just a continuation of 16, AFAICS. Is it possible to just repeat\n> the column headers (to break up the table length) and still keep it as one\n> question?\n>\n\n\nI agree.\n\n[...]\n\n>\n> Otherwise, I like the survey very much.\n\nMe too.\n\n>\n>> How long does it take to fill survey?\n>\n> ~ 5-7 minutes\n\nFor me it was 12 minutes, and it was without answering the free form\nquestions and with good git knowledge.\n\nSanti\n"},{"id":"117009","messageId":"20090626101605.GB9780@m62s10.vlinux.de","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906252122.51737.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Peter Baumann","fromEmail":"waste.manager@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-06-26T10:16:05Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T10:16:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"waste.manager@gmx.de","avatar":null},"body":"On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:22:50PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> I have created _proposed_ version of questions for upcoming \n> \"Git User's Survey 2009\", based on (a bit of) feedback on git\n> mailing list:\n> \"[RFH] Questions for Git User's Survey 2009\"\n> Msg-Id: <200905291855.03328.jnareb@gmail.com>\n> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/120287\n> and comments on #git IRC channel on FreeNode. \n> \n> Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to \n> 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n> were also greatly reduced.\n> \n> \n> The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n> the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n> \n> http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n> \n> Please tell me what you think about questions and about selection\n> of possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\n> If you have better idea for theme (mainly background and font \n> colors, and perhaps font size), help would be appreciated. Is it\n> better to use vertical form everywhere, or should we use horizontal\n> layout of answers for questions with short number of possible\n> answers? How long does it take to fill survey?\n> \n\n\nRemarks:\n\n- I find the visual layout of footnotes to 10 (\"What do you use to edit contents under\n version control with Git? What kind of editor, IDE or RAD you use working\n with Git?\") a little distracting. Could those at least be seperated by a newline?\n\n\n- I'm not sure if question 16 (\"How often do you use the following forms of git\n commands or extra git tools?\") isn't a little too much. At least I got scared by looking\n at all questions in there and I imagine that people get easily bored answering them.\n\n- The same might be true for question 17 and 18.\n\n\nOverall, I like the survey.\n\n-Peter\n"},{"id":"117011","messageId":"94a0d4530906260355r2d50fe0s244659599177c8@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906260932.43826.johan@herland.net","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-06-26T10:55:50Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T10:55:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"2009/6/26 Johan Herland :\n> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n>> Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to\n>> 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n>> were also greatly reduced.\n>\n> Good. :)\n>\n>> The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n>> the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n>>\n>>   http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n>>\n>> Please tell me what you think about questions and about selection\n>> of possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\n>\n> There seems to be some unnecessary overlap among questions 11, 16/17 and 18.\n> Examples: I found myself ticking off equivalent options like:\n> - 11/gitk, 17/gitk and 18/\"gitk or other history viewer\"\n> - 17/\"git gui\" and 18/\"git-gui or other commit tool\"\n> - 14/\"via git-bundle\", 15/\"git bundle\", 16/\"git bundle\" and 18/\"git bundle\"\n> - 11/StGIT/Guilt/TopGit and 18/\"path management interface\"\n> - 17/\"git reflog\" and 18/reflog\n> - 17/\"git stash\" and 18/stash\n> - 16/\"git difftool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n> - 16/\"git mergetool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n> - 17/\"git rebase -i\" and 18/\"interactive rebase\"\n> - 16/\"git add -i\" and 18/\"interactive commit/...\"\n> - 16/\"git filter-branch\", 18/\"git-filter-branch or cg-admin-rewritehist\" and\n> 18/\"git-filter-branch or equivalent\"\n> - 11/\"editor/IDE VC integration\" and 18/\"integration with IDE/editor\"\n>\n> Some of this overlap is probably unavoidable, but I think some of it\n> (especially between 16/17 and 18) can be eliminated without compromising the\n> survey. Maybe we can integrate the non-overlapping parts of 18 into the\n> other questions, thereby further decreasing the number of questions?\n>\n> BTW, 17 is just a continuation of 16, AFAICS. Is it possible to just repeat\n> the column headers (to break up the table length) and still keep it as one\n> question?\n\nI agree, I found myself clicking on gitk multiple times (4?)\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"117014","messageId":"94a0d4530906260412h78b55458gc722964011edb54d@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906252122.51737.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-06-26T11:12:59Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T11:12:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"2009/6/25 Jakub Narebski :\n> I have created _proposed_ version of questions for upcoming\n> \"Git User's Survey 2009\", based on (a bit of) feedback on git\n> mailing list:\n>  \"[RFH] Questions for Git User's Survey 2009\"\n>  Msg-Id: <200905291855.03328.jnareb@gmail.com>\n>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/120287\n> and comments on #git IRC channel on FreeNode.\n>\n> Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to\n> 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n> were also greatly reduced.\n>\n>\n> The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n> the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n>\n>  http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n\nThese are my comments:\n\n3. Did you find Git easy to learn?\n\nThat assumes the user already learned to use git, how about:\n3. Have you found Git easy to learn?\n\n8. How do you obtain Git?\n\nMost people install once, or at least not very often:\n8. How did you obtain Git? (maybe s/obtain/install/)\n\n14. How do you fetch/get changes from upstream repository?\n\nOnly one repository?\n14. How do you fetch/get changes from upstream repositories?\n\ngit ... --dirstat\n\nIsn't '--stat' more common?\ngit ... --stat (or --dirstat)\n\n18. Which of the following features do or did you use?\n\nMore readable:\n18. Which of the following features have you used?\n\n22. Did you participate in previous Git User's Surveys?\n22. In which of the previous Git User's Surveys have you participated?\n\n24. Which form of Git documentation do you use?\nDo you consider them useful?\n24. How useful have you found Git documentation?\n\n28. Do you read the mailing list, or watch IRC channel?\n28. Which communication channels do you use?\n\nAlso, I would like to see a list of areas users would like improvements:\nXX. In you opnion, which areas need improvement?\n * user-interface\n * documentation\n * performance\n * more features\n * other\n\nIs there a way for users to assign points? eg. user-interface: 2,\ndocumentation: 1, more features: 1\n\nI like it better than the previous one :)\n\nCheers.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"117018","messageId":"200906261508.46176.jnareb@gmail.com","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906260932.43826.johan@herland.net","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-06-26T13:08:43Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T13:08:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, 26 June 2009, Johan Herland wrote:\n> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n\n> > Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to\n> > 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n> > were also greatly reduced.\n> \n> Good. :)\n\nToo large number of questions in the survey, and filling survey taking\ntoo long were, I think, the most common complaints about survey in the\nyear before.\n\nA number of free-form essay questions from previous survey are still\nnot analyzed (even now).\n\n> > The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n> > the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n> >\n> > http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n> >\n> > Please tell me what you think about questions and about selection\n> > of possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\n> \n> There seems to be some unnecessary overlap among questions 11, 16/17 and 18. \n\nJust a reminder; those questions are:\n\n11. What Git interfaces, implementations, frontends and tools do you use?\n\n16. How often do you use the following forms of git commands\n or extra git tools?\n17. How often do you use the following forms of git commands\n or extra git tools? (continued)\n\n18. Which of the following features do or did you use?\n\nOverlap between questions 16/17 and 18 is, to some extent, intended. \nThose two questions ask about similar area but from the two different\npoints of view: question 16/17 is about git commands, 18 about features.\n\nIn first two drafts there were no question 16/17; it was brought back\nat the request on #git channel. I am a bit ambivalent about this \nquestion; on one hand side it allows responders to get to know some\ngit commands or form of git commands they didn't know about, on the\nother hand side it is one of most work-intensive and time-consuming\nquestions. It brings interesting information, but the same could\nhave been (perhaps better) gathered from a filtered list of commands\nin history, or from list of commands generated by special 'statistic\ngathering' compiled version of git.\n\nIt there are votes for removing questions 16/17 I can remove it from\nsurvey (again).\n\n> Examples: I found myself ticking off equivalent options like:\n> - 11/gitk, 17/gitk and 18/\"gitk or other history viewer\"\n> - 17/\"git gui\" and 18/\"git-gui or other commit tool\"\n\nThis can be easily corrected by removing extra tools which are\nmentioned in question 11. about tools used from possible answers\nto question 18. about features used. I am not so sure about removing\n'gitk' and 'git gui' from 16/17.\n\nOTOH some tools can be uses both as history viewer, and as commit tool.\nThis answer allow to distinguish between those two distinct usages.\n\n> - 14/\"via git-bundle\", 15/\"git bundle\", 16/\"git bundle\" and 18/\"git bundle\"\n\n14. How do you fetch/get changes from upstream repository?\n15. How do you publish/propagate your changes?\n\nThese are about different directions, and I think different ways of\nusing git-bundle. For fetching (or rather cloning) via bundle I would\nthink that project would publish ready for download bundles to reduce\ntraffic and load on server (HTTP download can be resumed, git-clone\ncurrently cannot; you can distribute bundle using P2P, GitTorrent and\ngit mirror-sync are not implemented (yet)). For publishing via bundle\nI would think about sending bundle via email, or posting it on review\nboard (BTW IIRC Gerrit uses git-bundle).\n\nAbout 16/17 (git commands) and 18 (features): I guess I can remove\ngit-bundle from the list of features we ask about.\n\nAbout 14, 15 (get / publish) and 16/17 (git commands): the command\nlist is meant to be comprehensive list of porcelain and porcelanish\ngit commands, so I don't think it would be good to remove bundle from\n16/17. OTOH git-bundle can be used neither for fetching nor for \npublishing, but for example only for review, or for syncing between\n_own_ repositories.\n\n> - 11/StGIT/Guilt/TopGit and 18/\"patch management interface\"\n\nI could remove \"patch management interface\" / \"topic branch management\ninterface\" from 18 (features), as they are in 11 (tools), but I am less\nsure about this than about removing \"history viewers\" and \"commit tools\".\n\n> - 17/\"git reflog\" and 18/reflog\n\nI think I'll remove 'reflog' from 18 (features), not because it is\npresent in 16/17 (git commands), but because this is feature one uses,\nI think, quite often and less 'conscious'.\n\nOTOH one can use reflog feature without using \"git reflog\" or \n\"git log -g\" (\"git log --walk-reflogs\") -- HEAD@{1} or @{yesterday}\nuses reflog feature without using mentioned git commands :-)\n\n> - 17/\"git stash\" and 18/stash\n\nTrue. Nevertheless I'd rather leave this duplication (well, unless\nquestion 16/17 (git commands) would be voted to be removed).\n\n> - 16/\"git difftool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n> - 16/\"git mergetool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n\nWell, it is even more clear that the issue of gitk etc. in 16/17 and 18;\nI think I can safely remove \"mergetool and/or difftool\" from \n18 (features). IIRC it was here because initially there were no\n16/17 (git commands) question.\n\n> - 17/\"git rebase -i\" and 18/\"interactive rebase\"\n\nHmmm... I would think about this.\n\n> - 16/\"git add -i\" and 18/\"interactive commit/...\"\n\nActually here \"interactive commit/...\" in 18 (features) covers more than\njust \"git add -i\", as it is also about per-chunk committing feature\nof git-gui and other commit tools.\n\n> - 16/\"git filter-branch\", 18/\"git-filter-branch or cg-admin-rewritehist\" and \n> 18/\"git-filter-branch or equivalent\"\n\nOoops. Certainly \"git-filter-branch or cg-admin-rewritehist\" and \n\"git-filter-branch or equivalent\" answers should be concatenated.\nMy mistake.\n\nAbout having it both in 16/17 (git commands) and 18 (features): I wonder\nif \"git filter-branch\" in 16/17 should be split into filterless version\n(make grafts into history, add 'encoding' header) and version with some\nfilter specified...\n\n> - 11/\"editor/IDE VC integration\" and 18/\"integration with IDE/editor\"\n\nO.K. I think I can safely remove this from 18 (features), as it is\npresent in 11 (tools).\n\n> \n> Some of this overlap is probably unavoidable, but I think some of it \n> (especially between 16/17 and 18) can be eliminated without compromising the \n> survey. Maybe we can integrate the non-overlapping parts of 18 into the \n> other questions, thereby further decreasing the number of questions?\n\nQuestions 16/17 (git commands) and 18 (features) are about the same area,\nbut orthogonal (different) approach. I was not sure (and still I am not)\nwhether to include 16/17 (git commands) question in the survey.\n\n> \n> BTW, 17 is just a continuation of 16, AFAICS. Is it possible to just repeat \n> the column headers (to break up the table length) and still keep it as one \n> question?\n\nThis is _technical_ limitation of Survs.com on number of answers in\na single question (I think it is 50 answers maximum, or something).\n\n> > How long does it take to fill survey?\n> \n> ~ 5-7 minutes\n\nThanks for this information.\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\n"},{"id":"117024","messageId":"200906261644.02694.johan@herland.net","threadId":"19934","inReplyTo":"200906261508.46176.jnareb@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] Git User's Survey 2009 - trial run","fromName":"Johan Herland","fromEmail":"johan@herland.net","sentAt":"2009-06-26T14:44:02Z","receivedAt":"2009-06-26T14:44:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johan@herland.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/547031?v=4"},"body":"On Friday 26 June 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> On Fri, 26 June 2009, Johan Herland wrote:\n> > On Thursday 25 June 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> > > Current version of survey has 30 questions, as compared to\n> > > 60 questions last year; the number of free-form essay questions\n> > > were also greatly reduced.\n> >\n> > Good. :)\n>\n> Too large number of questions in the survey, and filling survey\n> taking too long were, I think, the most common complaints about\n> survey in the year before.\n\nYes, that's why I focused on decreasing the number of questions even\nfurther.\n\n> A number of free-form essay questions from previous survey are still\n> not analyzed (even now).\n\nWhich is why we should as few free-form questions as possible.\n\n> > > The *test* version of this year survey can be now found at\n> > > the following URL (as in previous year, we use Survs.com)\n> > >\n> > > http://www.survs.com/survey?id=2PIMZGU0&channel=TFN2Y52K7Y\n> > >\n> > > Please tell me what you think about questions and about selection\n> > > of possible answers in single choice/multiple choice questions.\n> >\n> > There seems to be some unnecessary overlap among questions 11,\n> > 16/17 and 18.\n>\n> Just a reminder; those questions are:\n>\n> 11. What Git interfaces, implementations, frontends and tools do you\n> use?\n>\n> 16. How often do you use the following forms of git commands\n> or extra git tools?\n> 17. How often do you use the following forms of git commands\n> or extra git tools? (continued)\n>\n> 18. Which of the following features do or did you use?\n>\n> Overlap between questions 16/17 and 18 is, to some extent, intended.\n> Those two questions ask about similar area but from the two different\n> points of view: question 16/17 is about git commands, 18 about\n> features.\n\nI see, but in the cases where the feature questions in 18 are tied to\na specific git command already mentioned in 16/17, I believe you can\ndrop it from 18 (since we already got our answer in 16/17).\n\n> In first two drafts there were no question 16/17; it was brought back\n> at the request on #git channel. I am a bit ambivalent about this\n> question; on one hand side it allows responders to get to know some\n> git commands or form of git commands they didn't know about, on the\n> other hand side it is one of most work-intensive and time-consuming\n> questions. It brings interesting information, but the same could\n> have been (perhaps better) gathered from a filtered list of commands\n> in history, or from list of commands generated by special 'statistic\n> gathering' compiled version of git.\n>\n> It there are votes for removing questions 16/17 I can remove it from\n> survey (again).\n\nNo, I don't want to remove 16/17. I'd rather remove 18, since it\noverlaps so much with several of the earlier questions.\n\n> > Examples: I found myself ticking off equivalent options like:\n> > - 11/gitk, 17/gitk and 18/\"gitk or other history viewer\"\n> > - 17/\"git gui\" and 18/\"git-gui or other commit tool\"\n>\n> This can be easily corrected by removing extra tools which are\n> mentioned in question 11. about tools used from possible answers\n> to question 18. about features used. I am not so sure about removing\n> 'gitk' and 'git gui' from 16/17.\n\nmakes sense.\n\n> OTOH some tools can be uses both as history viewer, and as commit\n> tool. This answer allow to distinguish between those two distinct\n> usages.\n>\n> > - 14/\"via git-bundle\", 15/\"git bundle\", 16/\"git bundle\" and 18/\"git\n> > bundle\"\n>\n> 14. How do you fetch/get changes from upstream repository?\n> 15. How do you publish/propagate your changes?\n>\n> These are about different directions, and I think different ways of\n> using git-bundle. For fetching (or rather cloning) via bundle I\n> would think that project would publish ready for download bundles to\n> reduce traffic and load on server (HTTP download can be resumed,\n> git-clone currently cannot; you can distribute bundle using P2P,\n> GitTorrent and git mirror-sync are not implemented (yet)). For\n> publishing via bundle I would think about sending bundle via email,\n> or posting it on review board (BTW IIRC Gerrit uses git-bundle).\n\nyes, I don't want to remove or collapse 14 or 15. But in the cases\nwhere they overlap with later questions (16/17 and 18), you can\nremove those alternatives from the later questions.\n\n> About 16/17 (git commands) and 18 (features): I guess I can remove\n> git-bundle from the list of features we ask about.\n\nyes.\n\n> About 14, 15 (get / publish) and 16/17 (git commands): the command\n> list is meant to be comprehensive list of porcelain and porcelanish\n> git commands, so I don't think it would be good to remove bundle from\n> 16/17. OTOH git-bundle can be used neither for fetching nor for\n> publishing, but for example only for review, or for syncing between\n> _own_ repositories.\n\nI believe the \"comprehensive list of porcelain and porcelainish git\ncommands\" can be distributed over several questions, including 14 and 15.\n\n> > - 11/StGIT/Guilt/TopGit and 18/\"patch management interface\"\n>\n> I could remove \"patch management interface\" / \"topic branch\n> management interface\" from 18 (features), as they are in 11 (tools),\n> but I am less sure about this than about removing \"history viewers\"\n> and \"commit tools\".\n>\n> > - 17/\"git reflog\" and 18/reflog\n>\n> I think I'll remove 'reflog' from 18 (features), not because it is\n> present in 16/17 (git commands), but because this is feature one\n> uses, I think, quite often and less 'conscious'.\n\nagreed.\n\n> OTOH one can use reflog feature without using \"git reflog\" or\n> \"git log -g\" (\"git log --walk-reflogs\") -- HEAD@{1} or @{yesterday}\n> uses reflog feature without using mentioned git commands :-)\n\nBut _why_ are we asking this question? If the reflog feature is used\nall the time without people having to know about it, then there's no\npoint in asking about it. It's not like it's going to be removed in\nthe next version because people dislike it. It's like asking \"Are you\nusing Git blob objects?\". What are you going to do with the answer?\n\n> > - 17/\"git stash\" and 18/stash\n>\n> True. Nevertheless I'd rather leave this duplication (well, unless\n> question 16/17 (git commands) would be voted to be removed).\n\nAgain, I don't want to remove 16/17, I'd rather remove 18.\n\n> > - 16/\"git difftool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n> > - 16/\"git mergetool\" and 18/\"mergetool and/or difftool\"\n>\n> Well, it is even more clear that the issue of gitk etc. in 16/17 and\n> 18; I think I can safely remove \"mergetool and/or difftool\" from 18\n> (features). IIRC it was here because initially there were no 16/17\n> (git commands) question.\n\nI understand.\n\n> > - 17/\"git rebase -i\" and 18/\"interactive rebase\"\n>\n> Hmmm... I would think about this.\n\nAsk yourself: Would anyone answer YES to one of these items, but NO\nto the other (modulo typos/thinkos)? If not, you do not gain any\nextra information by asking the extra question, so you can safely\ndrop one of them.\n\n> > - 16/\"git add -i\" and 18/\"interactive commit/...\"\n>\n> Actually here \"interactive commit/...\" in 18 (features) covers more\n> than just \"git add -i\", as it is also about per-chunk committing\n> feature of git-gui and other commit tools.\n\nOk, but in that case do we really need to ask if they use \"git add -i\"?\nIsn't the main point whether or not people use the concept/feature,\nand not exactly which tool they use to do it?\n\n> > - 16/\"git filter-branch\", 18/\"git-filter-branch or\n> > cg-admin-rewritehist\" and 18/\"git-filter-branch or equivalent\"\n>\n> Ooops. Certainly \"git-filter-branch or cg-admin-rewritehist\" and\n> \"git-filter-branch or equivalent\" answers should be concatenated.\n> My mistake.\n>\n> About having it both in 16/17 (git commands) and 18 (features): I\n> wonder if \"git filter-branch\" in 16/17 should be split into\n> filterless version (make grafts into history, add 'encoding' header)\n> and version with some filter specified...\n\nI don't think it is necessary to split it.\n\n> > - 11/\"editor/IDE VC integration\" and 18/\"integration with\n> > IDE/editor\"\n>\n> O.K. I think I can safely remove this from 18 (features), as it is\n> present in 11 (tools).\n>\n> > Some of this overlap is probably unavoidable, but I think some of\n> > it (especially between 16/17 and 18) can be eliminated without\n> > compromising the survey. Maybe we can integrate the non-overlapping\n> > parts of 18 into the other questions, thereby further decreasing\n> > the number of questions?\n>\n> Questions 16/17 (git commands) and 18 (features) are about the same\n> area, but orthogonal (different) approach. I was not sure (and still\n> I am not) whether to include 16/17 (git commands) question in the\n> survey.\n\nAs I said above, I'd rather drop 18 (by which I really mean baking the\nnon-overlapping parts of 18 into the other questions).\n\n> > BTW, 17 is just a continuation of 16, AFAICS. Is it possible to\n> > just repeat the column headers (to break up the table length) and\n> > still keep it as one question?\n>\n> This is _technical_ limitation of Survs.com on number of answers in\n> a single question (I think it is 50 answers maximum, or something).\n\nOk.\n\n> > > How long does it take to fill survey?\n> >\n> > ~ 5-7 minutes\n>\n> Thanks for this information.\n\nBTW, Here are my suggested changes to the survey (in an ad-hoc\nquasi-diff format that hopefully better overview than the above\ndiscussion). As you can see, I have removed question 18, and added\nits non-overlapping items to the other questions (mostly 17). For\neach item in 18, I've noted [in square brackets] why it is removed\nor where it has moved:\n\n\n(1 - 10: No changes)\n\n11. What Git interfaces, implementations, frontends and tools do you use? \n+ * my own scripts\n\n(12 - 15: No changes)\n\n- 16. How often do you use the following forms of git commands or extra git tools?\n+ 16. How often do you use the following forms of git commands, features or extra git tools?\n never rarely sometimes often\n- * git add -i / -p [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * interactive commit / per-hunk comitting / partial commit (git add -i / -p) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n\n- * git filter-branch [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * git filter-branch (or equivalent) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n\n\n- 17. How often do you use the following forms of git commands or extra git tools? (continued)\n+ 17. How often do you use the following forms of git commands, features or extra git tools? (continued)\n never rarely sometimes often\n- * git rebase -i [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * git rebase -i (interactive rebase) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n- * git gui [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n- * gitk [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * End-of-line conversion (CRLF) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * gitattributes [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * submodules (subprojects) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * subtree merge [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * git-subtree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * separate worktree / core.worktree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * multiple worktrees (git-new-worktree) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * alternates mechanism (sharing object database) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * shallow clone [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * detaching HEAD [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * commit message templates [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * non-default hooks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * shell completion of commands [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n+ * git-aware shell prompt [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]\n\n\n- 18. Which of the following features do or did you use? \n- * git-gui or other commit tool [covered by 11/git-gui or 11/Other]\n- * gitk or other history viewer [covered by 11/gitk or 11/Other]\n- * patch management interface (e.g. StGIT, Guilt, TopGit) [covered by 11]\n- * git bundle (off-line transport) [covered by 16]\n- * eol conversion (crlf) [added to 17]\n- * gitattributes [added to 17]\n- * submodules (subprojects) [added to 17]\n- * subtree merge (optionally git-subtree) [added to 17]\n- * separate worktree / core.worktree [added to 17]\n- * multiple worktrees (git-new-worktree) [added to 17]\n- * alternates mechanism (sharing object database) [added to 17]\n- * reflog (includes \"git log -g\" and branch@{n}) [covered by 17]\n- * stash (optionally \"git stash --keep-index\") [covered by 17]\n- * shallow clone [added to 17]\n- * detaching HEAD [added to 17]\n- * mergetool and/or difftool [covered by 16]\n- * interactive rebase [covered by 17]\n- * interactive commit / per-hunk comitting / partial commit [covered by / added to 16]\n- * commit message templates [added to 17]\n- * git-filter-branch or cg-admin-rewritehist [remove, duplicate below]\n- * bisect (optionally \"git bisect run