From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:21:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-explain
Message-ID: <20061205092126.GE27236@soma>
In-Reply-To: <20061205072622.GA21839@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:09:17PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Should I take these responses to mean that you two are negative
> > about the approach of spending extra cycles to commands that can
> > leave the working tree in a "in the middle of doing something"
> > state to help having a unified command to explain what the
> > situation is and suggest the user possible exits, or are you
> > saying that it might be a good idea but "git explain" is a bad
> > name?
> 
> It seems like the point of this command is to show some state
> information which would otherwise be hard to see. I think of 'git
> status' as the way to look at the repository state. Perhaps we should
> enhance the output of 'git status' to note things such as failed merges,
> whether we're bisecting, in the middle of applying a patch series, etc.
> There could be an optional verbosity switch to give "full explanations"
> including recommended ways to deal with the situation.

I wholeheartedly agree that 'git status' should show something like
this.  I actually had some stuff that was a work-in-progress several
months ago that enhanced status with several things like this; but got
distracted and forgot about that repository.  I'll try to dig it out
sometime tomorrow.  I remember my work started from wanting to know
what 'git-rerere' would be recording.

--