Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation

From: Martin <git@mfriebe.de>
Date: Jul 17, 2021, 21:23 UTC
Message-ID: <1cb8774e-2489-e8aa-12ce-8d7e34b700ff@mfriebe.de>
In-Reply-To: <60f33f8a7c39b_507220823@natae.notmuch>

On 17/07/2021 22:37, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> If the user does not enter the state of concluding, then they will not
>> reach a conclusion at all.
> 
> If they had not reached a conclussion of what the command would do, then
> they would have not typed the command.

Please re-read my previous answers.

> 
> But they did type the command. Therefore they reached a conclussion about
> what the command would do.

Please re-read my previous answers.

> Just like before I click "send" I had already reached a conclussion
> about what that command will do, otherwise why would I click it?
>

Are you sure that a
- all your information was by conclusion, and none by other means?
- your conclusions where complete?

For the 2 above points, I pointed out several times that the users had partial info, and did not realize that it was incomplete. They were happy with what the partial info was, therefore they run the command. They never realized there was more.

By clicking "send" you have therefore revealed, that you have either not read, or otherwise not realized the content of those previous explanations of mine. Did you really conclude that before clicking send?

> I do not want to challenge your statement. Either you see what is
> obvious to me, or you don't.

I think I do see what is obvious to you. Unfortunately however that what you (afaik) think to be obvious, that is wrong.

You appear to believe a partial realization of what -C does is not possible. That for some reason, a user either realizes the full extend or nothing. No middle ground.

But that middle ground exists.

IIRC It was you who suggested something along the lines "taking steps becomes walking". Well, when I walk, I do not think about the steps. I do not realize them, nor conclude their existence. So it is possible to overlook important parts of a given whole.

> To me it's obvious that effect comes after cause.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

As soon as you see any part of the effect, that statement is satisfied. You cause something, you see some effect. All is good. But if what you saw is only a fraction of the entire effect, then you may never know.

When mankind started burning fuel, did they do so knowingly that it would destroy the environment, which they need to survive? According to you they must have, its an effect. They did the cause, they burned the fuel. The must have known the effect it would have.

Well they would have, if it had come with a documentation including a proper warning ;)

Show 5 quoted lines

>> For the 4th or 5th time (not going to count the exact number of times I
>> have answered the exact same question)
> 
> Repeating "I have washed the dishes properly" multiple times doesn't mean
> that you actually did it.

Yes, but you repeat the question. Rather than pointing out, what in your view is incorrect in my statement, you ask the same question again hoping for a different answer.

> 
>> The reason is the branchname was used, and the wanted to use it again.
> 
> What does "use it again" mean?

To them: Create a branch of that name at some commit. To me: much more.

> It does matter to me. Unless I see evidence for the existence of
> something, I'm not going to *assume* that that something exists.
>

But you assume that the following exists: "With the current doc, all users are fully aware of all consequence"

Yet you have no prove for that. You only can have prove that this applies to those you know (or those you ask).

So, since you have no proof, you can not assume that a situation exists in which the current doc is sufficient.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> "Off" is not called "force snooze". Off does not require to conclude
>> info, as "-C" does.
> 
> It's a "yes" or "no" question. Did he have a reason to click "off"?
>

Well in the sense that I understand your question: Yes.

And it did do, what the documentation said. Exactly that, and nothing more. So there was no surprise of any kind for that user.

If you mean to say, he fell asleep again, and the doc had no warning against that, well good (the doc part, not the falling asleep). I also do not request, that we add warnings to the git doc that say "you may do something wrong, get angry, and in your rage destroy parts of your work". No we should not add that.

Those are personal issues. The lost commits are a technical issue.