Re: Minor annoyance with git push
- From
Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2008, 18:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <07136779-23EB-4DAA-84C3-D54B7AC029AB@wincent.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802101625200.11591@racer.site>
El 10/2/2008, a las 17:26, Johannes Schindelin escribió:
Show 22 quoted lines
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > >> El 10/2/2008, a las 3:15, Johannes Schindelin escribió: >> >>> I'm no longer that sure. It seems that quite a lot of people do not >>> read manuals, and have no clue what they are doing when they just >>> try >>> >>> $ git push >>> >>> to see what the synopsis is. >> >> I think there's no way we should be catering for people who type >> command >> like "git push" just to see what the synopsis does. >> >> The verb "push" very clearly has connotations of a state-changing, >> possibly irreversible action (unlike other verbs like "log" or >> "show"). > > The problem is that "push" alone does not really imply which kind of > push.
Yes, I know. I myself was surprised by the default behaviour the first time I used "git push" (I only expected it to push the branch I was currently on).
But my point is that if you don't know what "git push" is going to do because its name doesn't imply "which kind of push" it will do (and in reality a newcomer might not even realize that there might be more than one kind of push), then adopting a "try it and see" approach ("let's type 'git push' and see if it gives me a synopsis") is not a very good idea, and in a case like this where "push" is what I'd call a "strong" verb, I don't think we should be trying to protect the user from doing something obviously idiotic.
I'm all for protecting the user from nasty surprises (like "git clean"; "clean" doesn't sound nearly as destructive as it can actually turn out to be) but I don't think that anyone typing "git push" can fairly claim to be surprised when Git goes ahead and, er, pushes something.
Cheers, Wincent