Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] reset: add option "--keep" to "git reset"

> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> > The purpose of this new option is to discard some of the
> > last commits but to keep current changes in the work tree.
> >
> > The use case is when you work on something and commit
> > that work. And then you work on something else that touches
> > other files, but you don't commit it yet. Then you realize
> > that what you commited when you worked on the first thing
> > is not good or belongs to another branch.
> >
> > So you want to get rid of the previous commits (at least in
> > the current branch) but you want to make sure that you keep
> > the changes you have in the work tree.
>
> You did this:
>
> 	git checkout master
> 	work; git commit ; work; git commit ; work; git commit
> 	edit ; git add ; ... (but not commit)
>
> and noticed the three commits should not be on master but on a new
> branch.
>
> I think we currently teach users to do something like this:
>
> 	git stash
>         git branch topic
>         git reset --hard HEAD~3
>         git stash pop
>
> Instead you want to do this:
>
> 	git branch topic
>         git reset --keep HEAD~3
>
> Surely you halved the number of command involved, but is this really an
> improvement?  At least I can visualize (and more importantly, explain to
> new users) how the "stash, flip and unstash" works, why it is safe, and
> how to recover when "pop" stops in conflicts, but I have no confidence in
> explaining what "reset --keep" does and how to recover when it refuses to
> work to new users.

> Another way to accomplish the same thing might be:
>
> 	git branch -m topic
>         git checkout -b master HEAD~3
>
> and with the same number of commands, conceptually it may be easier to
> understand than "reset --keep".  What you committed so far belongs to
> another branch "topic", so you name the current history that way, and
> then you switch branches with "checkout" that keeps your local
> modifications. It also opens the possibility of retrying with "-m" after
> checkout refuses to acti, to take the same mix-up risk CVS/SVN users
> have, if you are very confident that your local change conflicts only
> minimally with the change made on the topic and you can resolve them.

> Of course, when you are not interested in keeping the topmost commits at
> all, you either
>
> 	git stash ; git reset --hard HEAD~3 ; git stash pop
>
> or
>
> 	git reset --keep HEAD~3
>
> but even in this case, I think "stash, flip and unstash" is easier to
> explain, especially when teaching what to do if things go wrong.
>
> I dunno.  Is this really an useful addition that helps real-world
> workflows and is worth a five patch series, or is this just "because we
> can" patch?