Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp

From: Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 5, 2008, 22:53 UTC
Message-ID: <20081105225327.GD24100@dpotapov.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1225822231.6722.3.camel@maia.lan>

On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 07:10:31AM +1300, Sam Vilain wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:18 +0300, Dmitry Potapov wrote:
> > > I can see that some people want this behaviour by default; but to me
> > > "push the current branch back to where it came from" seems like far more
> > > a rational default for at least 90% of users.
> > 
> > I think it depends on one's workflow. If you use a centralized workflow
> > as with CVS then yes, 90% cases you want to push the current branch. On
> > the other hand, if people push their changes to the server only for
> > review, it means that accidentally pushing more than one intended is not
> > a big deal.
> 
> Perhaps not, but it was still unintended.

Even if it were unintended, it will be noticed and corrected immediately, while forgetting to push some changes is not so obvious... Anyway, your workflow assumes that one wants to push changes immediately before switching to another branch, while there are many people who do that later (after some additional testing or just at the end of their workday).

> I really can't understand the
> opposition to making this command make many people less angry at it.

Because it breaks how this command works now. So I don't think it is a good idea to make some people less angry while enraging many others over breaking their workflow. Compatibility should not be taken lightly.

Dmitry