RE: Git feature request: Option to force Git to abort a checkout if working directory is dirty (i.e. disregarding the check for conflicts)

> "Jonas Bang" <email@jonasbang.dk> writes:
> 
> >> >> ...  The default behaviour would cover their use case so your
> >> >> proposal would not hurt them, but I wonder if there are things you
> >> >> could do to help them as well, perhaps by allowing this new
> >> >> configuration to express something like "local changes in these
> >> >> paths are excempt from this new check".
> >> >
> >> > Yes, those people would probably use the default 'false' behavior
> >> > as it is already. If they however would like to use e.g. the 'true'
> >> > or 'include-untracked' setting as a configuration variable, then
> >> > they can use the command line option 'false' if they wish to do a
> >> > 'git checkout' even with modified files in the working tree.
> >>
> >> So in short, you are saying that "The added code necessary to
> >> implement this feature will not help them in any way, it is just that
> >> we will make sure it does not hurt them".
> >
> > I didn't realize they needed help.
> 
> If so, then you could have just stated that way, instead of saying they

> not hurt them."  and that is perfectly fine, as long as:
> 
>  - you do not directly hurt them with your series; and
> 
>  - you do not make it harder for those who are interested in helping
>    them to build on top of your work in the future.
> 
> > How and who to decide if this is a reasonable feature request to accept?
> 
> As this project primarily works on "scratch your own itch" basis, somebody
> who (1) thinks that the proposed feature is worth having in our system and
> (2) is interested in working on it will pick it up.
> 
> If nobody is interested, then usually nothing happens.