Re: [BUG] - "git commit --amend" commits, when exiting the editor with no changes written

From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 2, 2010, 23:40 UTC
Message-ID: <32541b131002021540g7a2834c9hacf2be5962f66515@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <76c5b8581002021502i2bb34967y9a88d8b25ce7fa42@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Eugene Sajine <euguess@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> wrote:
>>This feature would have to be
>> optional in order to not confuse existing users, and not annoy users
>> of editors (like my favourite, joe) which don't save-on-exit if the
>> file hasn't changed.  But I think it might be valuable to some people
>> nevertheless.  And if it became popular, perhaps it could become the
>> default in some future version of git (after giving people enough
>> notice, etc, etc).
>
> But here I totally disagree, because i don't understand what is so new
> and confusing in the workflow I'm talking about?
> Why you're not confused that you MUST save before exiting your EDITOR
> in order to be able to commit (else it will fail), but the same
> workflow suddenly becomes confusing when you doing "commit --amend" or
> especially "rebase -i" ???

I think you're missing the point of people's objections.

It's pretty clear that the current behaviour is inconsistent and confusing to new users:

- If you make a new commit and change your mind, abort your editor:
commit is aborted.

- If you amend a commit and change your mind, abort your editor:
commit gets *replaced* and newbies don't know how to get it back.
Argh!

However, whether it's inconsistent and confusing is unfortunately not the question. The question is what can you do to possibly improve things while a) not making backwards-incompatible changes, b) not making things even more inconsistent, and c) not annoying existing long-term users who like it fine the way it is. (I use the current behaviour and I even kind of like it now that I understand it. But I still think it's confusing and admit there may be a better way.)

git development is kind of like working at Intel or Microsoft. If you want to achieve world domination, you don't make new versions that are incompatible with old ones, no matter how stupid you think the old one was.

You can however add *new* stuff. That's why I suggested adding an option. You could even make it a config option so you only have to set it once (just like setting your preferred editor).

> I wish i could - but, unfortunately, I'm as far from C as from the Sun
> (star;)). I'm developing a little bit in Java, but can't do C.

There's no better time to learn :)

Have fun,

Avery