Re: Feature Request: user defined suffix for temp files created by git-mergetool

From: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 5, 2016, 09:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20161005094706.GA18574@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <597741871.671633.1475558327029.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:18:47AM -0400, Josef Ridky wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Hi Anatoly,
> 
> 
> | Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 5:18:44 PM
> | 
> | Hi Josef,
> | 
> | 
> | On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Josef Ridky <jridky@redhat.com> wrote:
> | > In several projects, we are using git mergetool for comparing files from
> | > different folders.
> | > Unfortunately, when we have opened three files  for comparing using meld
> | > tool (e.q. Old_version -- Result -- New_version),
> | > we can see only name of temporary files created by mergetool in the labels
> | > (e.g. foo_REMOTE -- foo_BASE -- foo_LOCAL)
> | > and users (and sometime even we) are confused, which of the files should
> | > they edit and save.
> | 
> | `git mergetool` just creates temporary files (with some temporary
> | names) and calls `meld` (or `vimdiff`, etc) with the file names as
> | parameters. So why wouldn't you call `meld` with the file names you
> | want?
> 
> 
> Because files, that we want, are temporary files created by
> git mergetool and we are not able to change their name.

[I didn't see your original patch, but we actually prefer inline
 patches in the email, as sent via `git send-email`.
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches has more details.

 Please also make sure to add a test to t/t7610-mergetool.sh
 exercising any new features.]

Are you proposing support for config variables to control how the temporary files are named?

e.g. something like "mergetool.strings.{local,remote,base}" for overriding the hard-coded {LOCAL,REMOTE,BASE} strings?

I don't want to over-engineer it, but do you want to support executing a command to get the name, or is having a replacement sufficient?

Now I'm curious... if replacing the strings is sufficient, what do you plan to call them? I can imagine maybe something like OURS, and THEIRS might be helpful since it matches the nomenclature already used by Git, e.g. "git merge -s ours".

Since these are temporary files, changing these names might not be entirely out of the question. This might be a case where using the same words as a related Git feature might help reduce the mental burden of using mergetool. OURS and THEIRS are probably the only names that fit that category, IMO. BASE is already good enough (merge-base).

The downside of making it configurable is that it can confuse users who use mergetool at someone else's desk where they've named these strings to "catty", "wombat", and "jimbo". This doesn't seem like the kind of place where we want to allow users to be creative, but we do care about having a good default.

OURS and THEIRS are intuitive names, so switching existing users to those would not have much downside IMO, and it's a little less "I just merged a REMOTE branch" centric, which is good.

Do you think these names should be changed? If so, did you have those names in mind, or something else entirely?

cheers,

-- 
David