Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next

From: Stephen R. van den Berg <srb@cuci.nl>
Date: May 27, 2008, 13:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20080527135259.GA12551@cuci.nl>
In-Reply-To: <8aa486160805270637m3fc640bfr9fa51eb917460e5c@mail.gmail.com>

Santi B?jar wrote:

>On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Johannes Schindelin
><Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Sure it is.  But cluttering up the commands for something that is not
>> really proven to be wanted by many is IMO inferior.

>This is an argument against git-whatzzup.sh in general. Point taken.

Not really. It's an argument against cluttering up the existing core with this stuff.

>Moreover, this could be integrated in "git status".

I personally have no need for such a thing, but in effect it is the git commandline equivalent of MS-Office "Clippy", which provides a hands-on tutorial in git while you are trying to use it (with the subtle yet important difference that it only provides advice when called).

So if you'd keep it confined to a shell script externally from the core commands, I could imagine a lot of new (or occasional) users of git being rather happy with an "interactive manual/hands-on tutorial" like this.

-- 
Sincerely,                                                          srb@cuci.nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg.

Skiing beyond this point may result in death and/or loss of skiing privileges.