{"thread":{"id":"43187","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","startedAt":"2006-12-03T17:01:15Z","lastAt":"2006-12-06T01:50:45Z","messageCount":21,"participants":["Nicolas Pitre","Junio C Hamano","Carl Worth","Linus Torvalds","Johannes Schindelin","Alan Chandler","Jakub Narebski","Martin Langhoff"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"298110","messageId":"200612031701.15594.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Alan Chandler","fromEmail":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","sentAt":"2006-12-03T17:01:15Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T17:01:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1862247e5ea8eac114c842f9dc3a5db6253754e24ef7171757cf97eedce48b8c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"With all the discussion about the index file in the last few days I would have \nthought that this issue would have come up.  But I don't think it has.\n\nI have been editing a set of files to make a commit, and after editing each \none had done a git update-index.\n\nAt this point I am just about to commit when I realise that one of the files \nhas changes in it that really ought to be a separate commit. \n\nSo effectively, I want to do one of three things\n\na) git-commit <that-file>\n\nExcept I can't because there is a safety valve that prevents this and there is \nno force option.\n\nb) Revert the index entry for that file back to the previous HEAD commit \npoint, whilst leaving the edits in the working tree, so that I can then \ncommit without that one file.\n\nI can't find a command to do that.  The nearest seems to be \ngit-update-index --remove, but the manual says that it will not do anything \nif the file still exists.\n\nc) Revert the entire index back to the state it was at the last commit so I \ncan selectively add back in the files that I have editted.\n\nThe command to do that seems to be\n\ngit-read-tree HEAD \n\nI tried this, and it did indeed seem to exactly this - not quite what I \nwanted, but actually a reasonable compromise.\n\nHowever, it took me a long time scanning possible commands before I found it \nso I thought I might add some text to one of the tutorials\n\nAny ideas of where?\n\nWhat happened to the text written here\n\nhttp://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=116406699903565&w=2\n\nI thought this might be a place to put something like this, but having just \nupdated my version of git from source, it doesn't seem to have been put in to \ngit anywhere yet.\n\n\n\n-- \nAlan Chandler\n"},{"id":"295804","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031008360.3476@woody.osdl.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"200612031701.15594.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@osdl.org","sentAt":"2006-12-03T18:24:11Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T18:24:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Alan Chandler wrote:\n>\n> With all the discussion about the index file in the last few days I would have \n> thought that this issue would have come up.  But I don't think it has.\n> \n> I have been editing a set of files to make a commit, and after editing each \n> one had done a git update-index.\n> \n> At this point I am just about to commit when I realise that one of the files \n> has changes in it that really ought to be a separate commit. \n> \n> So effectively, I want to do one of three things\n> \n> a) git-commit <that-file>\n> \n> Except I can't because there is a safety valve that prevents this and there is \n> no force option.\n\nI think that is actually a misfeature. \n\nThis _should_ just work. It's the easy and logical way to do it, and it's \nthe one that matches all the other behaviours of \"git commit\" these days.\n\nThe reason for the safety valve is actually not really \"safety\" any more, \nit's purely \"historical behaviour\". Ie the sanity check is not there \nbecause you would be doing anything unsafe, but simply because the \nbehaviour in this area _changed_, so the semantics are different from what \nthey were originally.\n\nBut those \"original\" semantics are now so old and so uninteresting that \nthe safety feature has gone from being a safety feature to just being \nannoying, and hindering you from doing what you want to do.\n\nSide note: you -can- do what you want to do, but it's insanely stupid. \nHere's what you'd do:\n\n\tgit ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n\tgit commit that-file\n\nbut there is no way in hell I will claim that this is a _good_ thing.\n\n[ That said, the whole\n\n\tgit ls-tree <treeish> -- <file-list> | git update-index --index-info\n\n  is a useful pattern to know. You can basically insert _any_ part of old \n  historical state into the index with this, which can be useful if you \n  want to play games without changing the _other_ parts of the index. ]\n\nSo anyway, I would suggest that we just get rid of that partial commit \n\"safety check\" in \"git commit\" for now. It still makes sense for when \nyou're in the middle of a _merge_, but the \"verify that index matches\" is \nnot worth it.\n\nOr at _least_ there should be a flag to force it.\n\nJunio?\n\n"},{"id":"297424","messageId":"ekv56m$vd0$1@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"200612031701.15594.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-03T18:31:51Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T18:31:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Alan Chandler wrote:\n\n> With all the discussion about the index file in the last few days I would have \n> thought that this issue would have come up.  But I don't think it has.\n> \n> I have been editing a set of files to make a commit, and after editing each \n> one had done a git update-index.\n> \n> At this point I am just about to commit when I realise that one of the files \n> has changes in it that really ought to be a separate commit. \n> \n> So effectively, I want to do one of three things\n> \n> a) git-commit <that-file>\n> \n> Except I can't because there is a safety valve that prevents this and there is \n> no force option.\n\nI do wonder what this safety valve is for, and why it acts also if\nindex version is equal to working directory version...\n\n> b) Revert the index entry for that file back to the previous HEAD commit \n> point, whilst leaving the edits in the working tree, so that I can then \n> commit without that one file.\n> \n> I can't find a command to do that.  The nearest seems to be \n> git-update-index --remove, but the manual says that it will not do anything \n> if the file still exists.\n\nThere is \"git update-index --force-remove <that-file>\". Currently there\nis no \"git reset -- <that-file>\", but you can revert index entry to the\none in HEAD using\n  $ git ls-tree HEAD -- <that-file> | git update-index --index-info\n\nAnd you can always try \"git-rm + git-add\".\n \n> c) Revert the entire index back to the state it was at the last commit so I \n> can selectively add back in the files that I have editted.\n> \n> The command to do that seems to be\n> \n> git-read-tree HEAD \n\nNo, the command for that is just \"git reset\" (which means \n\"git reset --mixed HEAD\"), and touches HEAD and index but not working\ndirectory\n\n\n> What happened to the text written here\n> \n>   http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=116406699903565&w=2\n    \"[DRAFT 2] Branching and merging with git\"\n\n> I thought this might be a place to put something like this, but having just \n> updated my version of git from source, it doesn't seem to have been put in to \n> git anywhere yet.\n\nlinux@horizon.com, perhaps you should send this text in the form of patch\ncreating Documentation/tutorial-3.txt file?\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n\n"},{"id":"297481","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031024480.3476@woody.osdl.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"200612031701.15594.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@osdl.org","sentAt":"2006-12-03T18:34:40Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T18:34:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Alan Chandler wrote:\n> \n> c) Revert the entire index back to the state it was at the last commit so I \n> can selectively add back in the files that I have editted.\n> \n> The command to do that seems to be\n> \n> git-read-tree HEAD \n\nA side note on this..\n\nIt definitely works, but it's not really the right thing to do for a few \nreasons:\n\n - it isn't even what you wanted. You didn't want to reset _all_ the index \n   values, you only really wanted to reset a few of them. So as mentioned \n   in the previous email, the command sequence you'd wanted for that \n   operation is\n\n\tgit ls-tree <tree> -- <path pattern list> |\n\t\tgit update-index --index-info\n\nBut, that said, if you actually want to reset the whole index, \n\"git-read-tree HEAD\" works, but is not what you should do:\n\n - you really want to keep the index \"stat()\" cache valid, and \n   git-read-tree will throw that all out. So you would need to do a\n\n\tgit update-index --refresh\n\n   after you've reset the index (\"git status\" will do it for you, and if \n   you don't do either \"git status\" or the above,  \n\n - instead of re-reading the index 100% and then having to refresh it back \n   to mostly the same stat() into it already had, you can _merge_ the old \n   index with the information in HEAD, by using\n\n\tgit read-tree -m HEAD\n\n   which basically does a merge from the old index and the HEAD tree.\n\n - However, that actually fails if the old index wasn't just dirty, but \n   had unmerged paths etc, because then a \"merge\" would throw away that \n   unmerged information. So what you _really_ want to do is\n\n\tgit read-tree --reset HEAD\n\n   which (as the flag implies) will _reset_ the index to the tree in HEAD, \n   and this will do exactly what you were looking for: keep the \"stat()\" \n   information alone, but reset the actual index contents.\n\n - HOWEVER. This is exactly what \"git reset\" does.\n\nSo in short, you should just have done \"git reset\", and you'd have reset \nyour index back to the state of your last commit.\n\nSo \"git reset\" is generally your friend whenever something goes wrong. If \nyou also want to reset your checked-out files (which you did NOT want to \ndo in this case, of course), you would have added the \"--hard\" flag to git \nreset.\n\nAnd that (finally) concludes this particularly boring \"git usage 101\" \nsession.\n\n"},{"id":"295509","messageId":"7vy7powz3k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031008360.3476@woody.osdl.org","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-03T19:36:47Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T19:36:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:\n\n> I think that is actually a misfeature. \n>\n> This _should_ just work. It's the easy and logical way to do it, and it's \n> the one that matches all the other behaviours of \"git commit\" these days.\n>\n> The reason for the safety valve is actually not really \"safety\" any more, \n> it's purely \"historical behaviour\". Ie the sanity check is not there \n> because you would be doing anything unsafe, but simply because the \n> behaviour in this area _changed_, so the semantics are different from what \n> they were originally.\n> ...\n> Or at _least_ there should be a flag to force it.\n>\n> Junio?\n\nI agree that if this sequence:\n\n\t$ edit foo\n        $ git update-index foo\n        $ edit foo\n        $ git commit foo\n        \nis what the user actually gives from the command line, after\nthis commit is made, the user would want to _lose_ the state of\nfoo at the update-index after this commit is made, 100% of the\ntime (not \"most likely\", nor \"usually\", but \"always\").  So I am\nvery in favor of removing that check.\n\nI am a bit worried if the reason behind this safety valve might\nhave been something else, and we describe the reason as \"we\nwould lose data with this sequence otherwise\" only to illustrate\nwhat's happening behind the scene in technical terms.\n\nIn other words, while I think no user would ever want to keep\nthe state of foo at update-index after the above exact sequence\nas the end-user action, I am worried if a usage sequence that\ninvolve a group of operations encapsulated in a larger command\n(a synthetic command that touches index and working files\nwithout making the user painfully aware of the index -- likes of\ngit-mv, git-rm, ...) might have been the true motivation of the\nsafety valve.\n\nI need to be reminded by somebody who went back to the list\ndiscussion around the time we introduced --only, and made sure\nthat the \"you would lose the snapshot you staged in the index if\nwe allowed it\" literally meant only that and nothing else; not\nsome other common sequence that had the above command sequence\ninside, and keeping the state of 'foo' at update-index time made\nsense for that usage pattern, although I do not think of\nanything offhand...\n\n"},{"id":"298362","messageId":"200612032011.25922.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031008360.3476@woody.osdl.org","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Alan Chandler","fromEmail":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","sentAt":"2006-12-03T20:11:25Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T20:11:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1862247e5ea8eac114c842f9dc3a5db6253754e24ef7171757cf97eedce48b8c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sunday 03 December 2006 18:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Alan Chandler wrote:\n> > With all the discussion about the index file in the last few days I would\n> > have thought that this issue would have come up.  But I don't think it\n> > has.\n> >\n> > I have been editing a set of files to make a commit, and after editing\n> > each one had done a git update-index.\n> >\n> > At this point I am just about to commit when I realise that one of the\n> > files has changes in it that really ought to be a separate commit.\n> >\n> > So effectively, I want to do one of three things\n> >\n> > a) git-commit <that-file>\n> >\n> > Except I can't because there is a safety valve that prevents this and\n> > there is no force option.\n...\n>\n> \tgit ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n> \tgit commit that-file\n\nI don't quite understand this - maybe it should be\n\ngit ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\ngit commit\ngit commit -a\n\neither I want to ONLY commit that file at the working tree state (and index \nbefore these commands), or I want to commit ALL except this file (so I can \nlater come and commit just that file)\n\nso having reset the index to the state of HEAD for \"that-file\" then the commit \nshould make a commit with all the other changes in the index (but NOT \nthat-file) and then the git commit -a picks up \"that-file\"\n\n-- \nAlan Chandler\n"},{"id":"298289","messageId":"ekvbg3$jjd$1@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"200612032011.25922.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-03T20:19:16Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T20:19:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Alan Chandler wrote:\n\n> On Sunday 03 December 2006 18:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n\n> ...\n>>\n>>      git ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n>>      git commit that-file\n> \n> I don't quite understand this - maybe it should be\n> \n> git ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n> git commit\n> git commit -a\n> \n> either I want to ONLY commit that file at the working tree state (and index \n> before these commands), or I want to commit ALL except this file (so I can \n> later come and commit just that file)\n> \n> so having reset the index to the state of HEAD for \"that-file\" then the commit \n> should make a commit with all the other changes in the index (but NOT \n> that-file) and then the git commit -a picks up \"that-file\"\n\n$ git ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n$ git commit that-file\n$ git commit\n\nresets index state of 'that-file' to the HEAD version, so the safety valve\nis bypassed and \"git commit that-file\" commit _working directory_ version\nonly (because --only is default for \"git commit <path>\"). Then you commit\nthe rest of files.\n\n\nWhile\n\n$ git ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n$ git commit\n$ git commit -a\n\nfirst commits rest of files, then all files to their working directory\nversion.\n\nP.S. Could you wrap lines a little earlier (76 columns perhaps)? Thanks\nin advance\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n\n"},{"id":"297957","messageId":"7v1wngwws6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031024480.3476@woody.osdl.org","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-03T20:26:49Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T20:26:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:\n\n> So \"git reset\" is generally your friend whenever something goes wrong. If \n> you also want to reset your checked-out files (which you did NOT want to \n> do in this case, of course), you would have added the \"--hard\" flag to git \n> reset.\n>\n> And that (finally) concludes this particularly boring \"git usage 101\" \n> session.\n>\n> \t\t\tLinus\n\nOne observation about git, made in a relatively distant past,\nwas \"git is not a usable system yet; there is no 'git undo'\".  I\nthink it was on the kernel list (I think it was from Alan who\nseems to have lost his last name from his From: line lately, but\nI may be mistaken).\n\nIt left a deep psychological trauma in me, not because it was\nstated in a brutal way (it wasn't) but because I fully agreed\nwith that statement from the end user point of view, but I did\nnot see a good solution to the problem (and I from the beginning\nkept saying \"I do not do Porcelains\" and kept calling what is\nshipped with core \"Porcelain-ish\").\n\n\"git reset\" is one part of \"undo\".  For example, undoing a\ncommit can be approximated with \"reset HEAD^\" or \"reset --hard\nHEAD^\"; undoing a conflicted and unfinished merge can be\napproximated with \"reset HEAD\" or \"reset --hard HEAD\".\n\nBut for one thing, these are only \"approximations\" (the working\ntree files after these two forms of reset are different from the\nstate you had before running \"commit\" or \"merge\").  And for\nanother thing, \"reset\" is only one part of \"undo\".  \"reset\"\nwould not help \"undo\"-ing a botched \"git bisect good\", for\nexample; you need \"git bisect reset\".  Similarly, \"git rebase\"\nin the middle can be undone with its own --abort option.  But\nthe user has to know about them.  Another twist is that once\ncompleted, \"rebase --abort\" obviously would not mean \"undo the\nlast rebase\".\n\nI think one cause of the \"problem\" (if not having a general\n\"undo\" is a problem, and I think it is to some extent) is that\ngit Porcelain-ish commands try to stay stateless to allow mixing\nand matching of different commands to leave the door open to the\nend user to be flexible, but they go too far.  Some of the\ncommands do leave its state (e.g. MERGE_HEAD is a sign of a\nmerge in progress, and git-commit notices it), and some of the\ncommands know about state markers from the other commands\n(e.g. \"git reset\" removes MERGE_HEAD).  However, I think we do\nnot do enough of inter-command coordination.  Although I haven't\nchecked, I would be very surprised if we already prevented \"git\nbisect\" from running, while a merge is in progress, for example.\n\nWhile I do not think we need to supply \"git undo\" for a command\nthat already ran successfully to its completion (e.g. I think\nthe answer to \"how would I undo a commit I just made\" can be\nleft as \"use one of the reset, or --amend, depending on what you\nwant\"), it might be a worthwhile thing to aim for to give a\nunified \"git oops\" command that recovers from a \"unusual\" state\nyour git working tree may be left in.\n\nFor UI-usability minded people, it might be a good thing to\nenumerate the possible 'states' a working tree can be in, draw a\nstate transition diagram among them, with possible and forbidden\ntransitions.  After that, we can annotate the allowed\ntransitions with \"use this command to make this transtion\nhappen\".\n\nThe following list may be a starter; it is not comprehensive,\nand does not list the transitions, though.\n\n - the base state\n\n - bisect in progress\n\n - conflicted merge in progress (or --no-commit given)\n\n - immediately after \"merge --squash\" is run but not yet committed\n\n - conflicted git am/git applymbox in progress.\n\n - conflicted git rebase in progress (this actually has two\n   separate states depending on --merge was used or not).\n\n - conflicted git revert/cherry-pick (I list this separately\n   from 'merge in progress' because this is an example of\n   command leaving too little state).\n\n - conflicted 'git checkout -m' (although this is almost the\n   same as the base state, it has higher stages in the index).\n"},{"id":"297812","messageId":"200612032029.17150.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"ekvbg3$jjd$1@sea.gmane.org","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Alan Chandler","fromEmail":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","sentAt":"2006-12-03T20:29:17Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T20:29:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1862247e5ea8eac114c842f9dc3a5db6253754e24ef7171757cf97eedce48b8c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sunday 03 December 2006 20:19, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n\n> P.S. Could you wrap lines a little earlier (76 columns perhaps)?\n> Thanks in advance\n\nSorry wrap was set at 78 (kmail).  I've changed it to 72\n\n\n-- \nAlan Chandler\n"},{"id":"297332","messageId":"200612032040.13100.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031024480.3476@woody.osdl.org","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Alan Chandler","fromEmail":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","sentAt":"2006-12-03T20:40:12Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T20:40:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1862247e5ea8eac114c842f9dc3a5db6253754e24ef7171757cf97eedce48b8c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sunday 03 December 2006 18:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n...\n> So in short, you should just have done \"git reset\", and you'd have\n> reset your index back to the state of your last commit.\n>\n> So \"git reset\" is generally your friend whenever something goes\n> wrong. If you also want to reset your checked-out files (which you\n> did NOT want to do in this case, of course), you would have added the\n> \"--hard\" flag to git reset.\n\nDoh [slaps head with wet blanket]\n\nI was so worried about NOT changing my working tree - I totally \noverlooked the reset command.  I had never quite understood \nwhat --mixed really meant before.  But re-reading the man page now, its \nobvious.\n\n\n\n-- \nAlan Chandler\n"},{"id":"295287","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031236560.3476@woody.osdl.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"200612032011.25922.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@osdl.org","sentAt":"2006-12-03T20:40:53Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-03T20:40:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Alan Chandler wrote:\n> >\n> > \tgit ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n> > \tgit commit that-file\n> \n> I don't quite understand this - maybe it should be\n> \n> git ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n> git commit\n> git commit -a\n\nSure. It depends on which file you want to commit first.\n\nIf you want to commit \"that-file\" first, you do my sequence.\n\nIf you want to commit everything _but_ \"that-file\", you do the second \nsequence (which basically removes the changes to \"that-file\" from the \nindex, then commits the index, and then with \"git commit -a\" commits the \nremaining dirty state, which is obviously those changes to \"that-file\" \nthat you still had in the working tree).\n\n> either I want to ONLY commit that file at the working tree state (and index \n> before these commands), or I want to commit ALL except this file (so I can \n> later come and commit just that file)\n\nRight. If you do\n\n\tgit ls-tree HEAD -- that-file | git update-index --index-info\n\tgit commit that-file\n\nyou basically ONLY commit \"that-file\". You first reset it (in the index) \nto the old state, but that's just so that \"git commit that-file\" will now \nhappily commit the current state (in the working tree) of \"that-file\".\n\nSo \"git commit that-file\" will basically _ignore_ your current index. \nBecause you told \"git commit\" (by naming \"that-file\") that you _only_ \nwanted to commit \"that-file\". So whatever state you had in your current \nindex doesn't matter at all - it will only look at the HEAD tree _and_ \nthat single file that you specified.\n\n"},{"id":"296195","messageId":"7vveksoscy.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612031008360.3476@woody.osdl.org","subject":"Re: Some advanced index playing","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-04T10:41:49Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-04T10:41:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:\n\n> I think that is actually a misfeature. \n>\n> This _should_ just work. It's the easy and logical way to do it, and it's \n> the one that matches all the other behaviours of \"git commit\" these days.\n> ...\n> So anyway, I would suggest that we just get rid of that partial commit \n> \"safety check\" in \"git commit\" for now. It still makes sense for when \n> you're in the middle of a _merge_, but the \"verify that index matches\" is \n> not worth it.\n\nThe codepath has a big \"don't do this during a merge\" check in\nfront.  I think this is a safe thing to do, so let's do this.\n\ndiff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh\nindex 81c3a0c..c829791 100755\n--- a/git-commit.sh\n+++ b/git-commit.sh\n@@ -350,19 +350,9 @@ t,)\n \t\t\trefuse_partial \"Cannot do a partial commit during a merge.\"\n \t\tfi\n \t\tTMP_INDEX=\"$GIT_DIR/tmp-index$$\"\n-\t\tif test -z \"$initial_commit\"\n-\t\tthen\n-\t\t\t# make sure index is clean at the specified paths, or\n-\t\t\t# they are additions.\n-\t\t\tdirty_in_index=`git-diff-index --cached --name-status \\\n-\t\t\t\t--diff-filter=DMTU HEAD -- \"$@\"`\n-\t\t\ttest -z \"$dirty_in_index\" ||\n-\t\t\trefuse_partial \"Different in index and the last commit:\n-$dirty_in_index\"\n-\t\tfi\n \t\tcommit_only=`git-ls-files --error-unmatch -- \"$@\"` || exit\n \n-\t\t# Build the temporary index and update the real index\n+\t\t# Build a temporary index and update the real index\n \t\t# the same way.\n \t\tif test -z \"$initial_commit\"\n \t\tthen\n"},{"id":"294374","messageId":"7vwt57j94c.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"7v1wngwws6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"[PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-05T03:48:35Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-05T03:48:35Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:\n\n> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:\n>\n>> So \"git reset\" is generally your friend whenever something goes wrong. If \n>> you also want to reset your checked-out files (which you did NOT want to \n>> do in this case, of course), you would have added the \"--hard\" flag to git \n>> reset.\n>>\n>> And that (finally) concludes this particularly boring \"git usage 101\" \n>> session.\n>\n> One observation about git, made in a relatively distant past,\n> was \"git is not a usable system yet; there is no 'git undo'\".  I\n> think it was on the kernel list (I think it was from Alan who\n> seems to have lost his last name from his From: line lately, but\n> I may be mistaken).\n>\n> It left a deep psychological trauma in me, not because it was\n> stated in a brutal way (it wasn't) but because I fully agreed\n> with that statement from the end user point of view, but I did\n> not see a good solution to the problem (and I from the beginning\n> kept saying \"I do not do Porcelains\" and kept calling what is\n> shipped with core \"Porcelain-ish\").\n> ...\n> I think one cause of the \"problem\" (if not having a general\n> \"undo\" is a problem, and I think it is to some extent) is that\n> git Porcelain-ish commands try to stay stateless to allow mixing\n> and matching of different commands to leave the door open to the\n> end user to be flexible, but they go too far.\n\nThey go too far by doing too little.\n\nAnd here is throwing an idea to remedy it; it is far from\ncomplete but sending it out early before spending too much time\non pursuit of a wild goose.\n\n-- >8 --\n[PATCH] git-explain\n\nThis patch adds \"git-explain\" script that notices various clues\nother commands can leave the working tree and repository in and\nintended to guide the end user out of the confused mess.\n\nThis is only a demonstration-of-concept, as many commands do not\nleave enough information for us to truly figure out what state\nwe are in nor how we got into the mess.  As a demonstration, it\nmakes \"git merge\" to leave a new \"$GIT_DIR/FAILED_MERGE\" file\nwhen it gives up before touching the working tree.\n\nSigned-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>\n---\n git-explain.sh |  172 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n git-merge.sh   |    3 +-\n git-reset.sh   |    3 +-\n 3 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/git-explain.sh b/git-explain.sh\nnew file mode 100755\nindex 0000000..07115ae\n--- /dev/null\n+++ b/git-explain.sh\n@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@\n+#!/bin/sh\n+#\n+# Copyright (c) 2006 Junio C Hamano\n+#\n+\n+SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes\n+. git-sh-setup\n+\n+TOP=`git-rev-parse --show-cdup`\n+test -z \"$TOP\" && TOP=./\n+\n+say_with_indent() {\n+\techo \"$@\" | sed -e 's/^/\t/'\n+}\n+\n+explain_merge_conflict () {\n+\ttest -f $GIT_DIR/HEAD &&\n+\ttest -f \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD\" &&\n+\ttest -f \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_MSG\" &&\n+\ttest \"z`git ls-files -u`\" != z || return 1\n+\n+\ttitle=$(sed -e q \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_MSG\")\n+\n+\tconflicts=$(git ls-files -u |\n+\t\tsed -e 's/^[0-7]* [0-9a-f]* [0-3]\t//' |\n+\t\tuniq)\n+\n+\tgit diff-index -r --name-only HEAD >\"$tmp-1\"\n+\tgit diff-tree -r --name-only HEAD MERGE_HEAD >\"$tmp-2\"\n+\tlocals=`comm -23 \"$tmp-1\" \"$tmp-2\"`\n+\n+\tcat <<EOF\n+You tried a merge whose title will be\n+\n+\t$title\n+\n+This may have successfully merged some paths and they are already\n+staged for the next commit, but the following paths could not be\n+automatically merged:\n+\n+EOF\n+\n+\tsay_with_indent \"$conflicts\"\n+\n+\tif test \"z$locals\" != z\n+\tthen\n+\t\tcat <<\\EOF\n+\n+Also you seem to have local modifications unrelated to this\n+merge in the following paths:\n+\n+EOF\n+\n+\t\tsay_with_indent \"$locals\"\n+\tfi\n+\n+\tcat <<\\EOF\n+\n+There are two ways to proceed from here:\n+\n+(1) You can decide to abort this for now and get back to the\n+    state before you started the merge.\n+\n+\t$ git reset --hard\n+\n+    will revert your working tree files to the latest commit\n+    before this merge.  Note that you would lose the local\n+    modifications with this action, so you might want to\n+    preserve them with this command before doing so:\n+\n+\t$ git diff HEAD -- <locally changed files> >preserved-local-changes\n+\n+    Then you can re-apply the changes after running \"git reset\n+    --hard\".\n+\n+(2) To resolve the conflicts and record this merge, you first\n+    need to examine the conflicted paths listed above, and edit\n+    them in your working tree.  After you are done, stage the\n+    final version of these paths and make a commit, like this:\n+\n+\t$ git add <locally changed files>\n+\t$ git commit\n+\n+    Do not use \"git commit -a\" unless you want the local\n+    modifications that are not related to this merge committed\n+    along with the changes this merge brings in.\n+EOF\n+}\n+\n+explain_merge_stop () {\n+\ttest -f $GIT_DIR/HEAD &&\n+\ttest -f $GIT_DIR/FAILED_MERGE &&\n+\ttest \"z`git rev-parse HEAD`\" = \"z`git rev-parse ORIG_HEAD`\" &&\n+\ttest \"z`git ls-files -u`\" = z || return 1\n+\n+\tgit diff-index -r --name-only HEAD >\"$tmp-1\"\n+\tgit diff-tree -r --name-only HEAD FAILED_MERGE >\"$tmp-2\"\n+\tconflicts=`comm -12 \"$tmp-1\" \"$tmp-2\"`\n+\tlocals=`comm -23 \"$tmp-1\" \"$tmp-2\"`\n+\n+\tcat <<\\EOF\n+You tried a merge but it stopped without touching your working tree,\n+because you had local changes in the following paths that may also\n+be involved in the merge:\n+\n+EOF\n+\tsay_with_indent \"$conflicts\"\n+\n+\tif test \"z$locals\" != z\n+\tthen\n+\t\tcat <<\\EOF\n+\n+Also you seem to have local modifications unrelated to this\n+merge in the following paths:\n+\n+EOF\n+\n+\t\tsay_with_indent \"$locals\"\n+\n+\tfi\n+\n+\tcat <<\\EOF\n+\n+There are two ways to proceed from here:\n+\n+(1) You can decide to abort this merge for now.  You do not have\n+    to do anything in this case because the merge hasn't touched\n+    your working tree files yet.\n+\n+(2) You can first make the merge and re-apply your local changes\n+    on top of the merge result.  To do this, first stash away\n+    your local changes in a temporary commit, like this:\n+\n+\t$ git commit -a -m 'WIP'\n+\t$ git tag WIP\n+\t$ git reset --hard HEAD^\n+\n+    and run the same \"git merge\" (or \"git pull\") again.  After\n+    you finished the merge, you can review the local change with:\n+\n+\t$ git show WIP\n+\n+    and re-apply them to your working tree as you see fit.\n+EOF\n+}\n+\n+explain_am () {\n+\ttest -d $TOP/.dotest || return 1\n+\n+\tcat <<EOF\n+You tried to apply a series of `cat .dotest/last` patch(es) and\n+are currently handling patch #`cat .dotest/next`.\n+\n+EOF\n+\n+}\n+\n+explain_base () {\n+\t# This comes at the end.\n+\tcat <<EOF\n+Don't worry, you are not in the middle of anything complicated.\n+EOF\n+\n+}\n+\n+tmp=\"$GIT_DIR/tmp\"\n+trap 'rm -f $tmp-*' 0\n+\n+explain_merge_conflict ||\n+explain_merge_stop ||\n+explain_am ||\n+explain_base\n\\ No newline at end of file\ndiff --git a/git-merge.sh b/git-merge.sh\nindex 272f004..674abad 100755\n--- a/git-merge.sh\n+++ b/git-merge.sh\n@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ index_merge=t\n \n dropsave() {\n \trm -f -- \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD\" \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_MSG\" \\\n-\t\t \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_SAVE\" || exit 1\n+\t\t \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_SAVE\" \"$GIT_DIR/FAILED_MERGE\" || exit 1\n }\n \n savestate() {\n@@ -400,6 +400,7 @@ case \"$best_strategy\" in\n '')\n \trestorestate\n \techo >&2 \"No merge strategy handled the merge.\"\n+\techo \"$@\" >\"$GIT_DIR/FAILED_MERGE\"\n \texit 2\n \t;;\n \"$wt_strategy\")\ndiff --git a/git-reset.sh b/git-reset.sh\nindex 3133b5b..045ee79 100755\n--- a/git-reset.sh\n+++ b/git-reset.sh\n@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ case \"$reset_type\" in\n \t;;\n esac\n \n-rm -f \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD\" \"$GIT_DIR/rr-cache/MERGE_RR\" \"$GIT_DIR/SQUASH_MSG\"\n+rm -f \"$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD\" \"$GIT_DIR/rr-cache/MERGE_RR\" \\\n+\t\"$GIT_DIR/SQUASH_MSG\" \"$GIT_DIR/FAILED_MERGE\"\n \n exit $update_ref_status\n-- \n1.4.4.1.g15e3\n\n"},{"id":"297969","messageId":"el3ibq$9kn$2@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"7vwt57j94c.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-05T10:43:04Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-05T10:43:04Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> [PATCH] git-explain\n> \n> This patch adds \"git-explain\" script that notices various clues\n> other commands can leave the working tree and repository in and\n> intended to guide the end user out of the confused mess.\n\nI like it, although I think that it explains a bit too little\nabout aborted git-rebase / git-am, and for example doesn't touch\ngit-bisect at all. Both as an end-user script (BTW. the name could\nbe changed using aliases), and as a policy for git commands.\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n\n"},{"id":"297970","messageId":"46a038f90612051500w44438f70y3c7d1c99998d16bb@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"el3ibq$9kn$2@sea.gmane.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2006-12-05T23:00:14Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-05T23:00:14Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 12/5/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> > [PATCH] git-explain\n> >\n> > This patch adds \"git-explain\" script that notices various clues\n> > other commands can leave the working tree and repository in and\n> > intended to guide the end user out of the confused mess.\n>\n> I like it, although I think that it explains a bit too little\n\nI like what it does too... but why not as part of git-status?\n\ncheers,\n\n\n"},{"id":"294298","messageId":"7vslfudjsa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"46a038f90612051500w44438f70y3c7d1c99998d16bb@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-05T23:07:01Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-05T23:07:01Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Martin Langhoff\" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> On 12/5/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:\n>> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>\n>> > [PATCH] git-explain\n>> >\n>> > This patch adds \"git-explain\" script that notices various clues\n>> > other commands can leave the working tree and repository in and\n>> > intended to guide the end user out of the confused mess.\n>>\n>> I like it, although I think that it explains a bit too little\n>\n> I like what it does too... but why not as part of git-status?\n\nThe biggest reason was that it is a demonstration of concepts,\nnot replacement of anything.  Maybe \"git status\" can be replaced\nwith something like that if people worked on it enough.\n\nThe current use of \"git status\" inside \"git commit\" needs to be\nrevamped if we pursue this further, though.  Because one of the\npoints the \"what state is this repository in\" check \"explain\"\ndoes is to define what operations are sensible in each state,\nand most likely in many state it would not make _any_ sense to\nrun \"git commit\" (say, in the middle of \"bisect\").\n\n\n\n\n"},{"id":"296145","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612060033540.28348@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"7vslfudjsa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2006-12-05T23:37:52Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-05T23:37:52Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> \"Martin Langhoff\" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:\n> \n> > I like what it does too... but why not as part of git-status?\n> \n> The biggest reason was that it is a demonstration of concepts,\n> not replacement of anything.  Maybe \"git status\" can be replaced\n> with something like that if people worked on it enough.\n\nOkay, so what do people need? This is evidently a question for people who \nare not intimately familiar with the core of Git. So, where are you \nnewbies when we need you? Speak up!\n\nSurely, you hit a wall on the road, where you really wanted to ask \"git \nwtf\"?\n\n> The current use of \"git status\" inside \"git commit\" needs to be revamped \n> if we pursue this further, though.  Because one of the points the \"what \n> state is this repository in\" check \"explain\" does is to define what \n> operations are sensible in each state, and most likely in many state it \n> would not make _any_ sense to run \"git commit\" (say, in the middle of \n> \"bisect\").\n\nThat is right, but it is only a matter of having a command line switch to \nsuppress what you do not need for the commit message. After all, \"status\" \nreally should tell you about the status of the working directory. The fact \nthat we have the _same_ script for \"commit\" and \"status\" is no excuse!\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"296105","messageId":"7vu009dhgz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612060033540.28348@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-12-05T23:57:00Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-05T23:57:00Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:\n\n> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>...\n>> The current use of \"git status\" inside \"git commit\" needs to be revamped \n>> if we pursue this further, though.  Because one of the points the \"what \n>> state is this repository in\" check \"explain\" does is to define what \n>> operations are sensible in each state, and most likely in many state it \n>> would not make _any_ sense to run \"git commit\" (say, in the middle of \n>> \"bisect\").\n>\n> That is right, but it is only a matter of having a command line switch to \n> suppress what you do not need for the commit message. After all, \"status\" \n> really should tell you about the status of the working directory. The fact \n> that we have the _same_ script for \"commit\" and \"status\" is no excuse!\n\nSure.  The way I envisioned it was that we would have a moral\nequivalent of current git-status output for explanation of the\nbase state.\n\nI originally wanted to do \"git oops\" which would have been a\nuniversal \"undo\" command, and \"explain\" was only the first\nsmaller step toward that goal.  But the more I think about it, I\nfeel that \"undo\" is less important.\n\n"},{"id":"295181","messageId":"87bqmh28g7.wl%cworth@cworth.org","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"7vu009dhgz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Carl Worth","fromEmail":"cworth@cworth.org","sentAt":"2006-12-06T00:07:20Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-06T00:07:20Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"cworth@cworth.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/3746dc28cde609bdbd7f939058356e7e2bbd16d21e32274df0725eb3d998bc5b?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:57:00 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> I originally wanted to do \"git oops\" which would have been a\n> universal \"undo\" command, and \"explain\" was only the first\n> smaller step toward that goal.  But the more I think about it, I\n> feel that \"undo\" is less important.\n\nI like the idea of \"git status\" explaining what operations are \"in\nprogress\" and what the user might want to do next to complete the\noperation.\n\nAs for the desire for \"undo\", it probably makes sense to just keep\nfocusing on making \"git reset\" a nice, safe way to undo any sort of\n\"in progress\" operation. The recent cleanup patches are in line with\nthis.\n\nOne thing that conflicts with that goal a bit is that git-reset is\nalso used to move the current branch arbitrarily in the commit DAG,\nand also (with --hard) to discard local commits. Those are definitely\nless \"safe\" operations.\n\n-Carl\n"},{"id":"296761","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612060125320.28348@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"7vu009dhgz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2006-12-06T00:27:42Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-06T00:27:42Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> But the more I think about it, I feel that \"undo\" is less important.\n\nMe, too. I was really astonished that people said -- after quite some \nexplanations -- \"wow, you mean I did not lose any work?\"\n\nThat's the nice thing about git: it is really hard to lose any objects. \nUnless you explicitely issue a \"git prune\", you can resurrect whatever was \nyour state.\n\nIn this spirit, maybe it is time to enable reflog per default?\n\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"293996","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0612052050190.2630@xanadu.home","threadId":"43187","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0612060125320.28348@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] git-explain","fromName":"Nicolas Pitre","fromEmail":"nico@cam.org","sentAt":"2006-12-06T01:50:45Z","receivedAt":"2006-12-06T01:50:45Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"nico@fluxnic.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/702790?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> In this spirit, maybe it is time to enable reflog per default?\n\nDefinitely.\n\n\n"}]}