From: Phillip Wood Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:58:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/21] checkout: split part of it to new command 'switch' Message-ID: <47d1d587-9c75-cc97-3006-6cc22707a70a@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Hi Elijah On 11/03/2019 22:04, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:51 PM Phillip Wood wrote: >> On 11/03/2019 17:24, Elijah Newren wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:47 AM Duy Nguyen wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:16 PM Phillip Wood wrote: >>>>> On 08/03/2019 09:57, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: >>>>>> "git checkout" doing too many things is a source of confusion for many >>>>>> users (and it even bites old timers sometimes). To remedy that, the >>>>>> command will be split into two new ones: switch and >>>>>> something-to-checkout-paths. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a good idea, thanks for working on it. I wonder if it >>>>> would be a good idea to have the new command refuse to checkout a new >>>>> branch if there is a cherry-pick/revert/merge/rebase in progress (with >>>>> an option to override the check) as switching branches in the middle of >>>>> one of those is likely to be confusing to users (if I do it it is >>>>> normally because I've forgotten that I've not run 'git whatever >>>>> --continue'). >>>> >>>> Interesting. I think this would be a good default if we have an escape >>>> hatch (which could even come later). I often wander off to some other >>>> branch and go back. But then half the time I end up forgetting I'm in >>>> a middle of something and just "git rebase --quit" :P >>>> >>>> Of course with git-stash (*) and git-worktree, I guess there's little >>>> reason to just switch away from a something-in-progress worktree. I'll >>>> try to implement this in the next round, unless someone objects. >>> >>> No objection here; I like this idea. >>> > > Keeping this hunk since it's now relevant to the comment below... > >>>>>> +-f:: >>>>>> +--force:: >>>>>> + Proceed even if the index or the working tree differs from >>>>>> + HEAD. Both the index and working tree are restored to match >>>>>> + the switching target. This is used to throw away local >>>>>> + changes. >>>>> >>>>> I'd always thought that --force meant "throw away my local changes if >>>>> they conflict with the new branch" not "throw them away regardless" >>>>> (which is better as it is deterministic). Maybe we can come up with a >>>>> clearer name here --discard-changes? At the moment --force does not >>>>> throw away conflicts properly (see the script below in my comments about >>>>> --merge). >>>> >>>> Yeah if you want to redefine --force, now is a very good time. >>>> Personally I'd rather have separate options than the "one catch all" >>>> --force (or worse, multiple of --force). I'll leave this for the >>>> community to decide. >>>> >>>> Adding Elijah too. He also had some concern about "git restore >>>> --force". Maybe he's interested in this as well. >>> >>> I like Phillip's suggestion of --discard-changes. I also like how he >>> came up with a simple testcase showing one bug each with checkout's >>> current -m and -f handling; we should fix those. >> >> With regard to discarding conflicts, do we want it to clear up any state >> associated with the conflicts (like reset)? They rarely happen in >> isolation, there's a MERGE_HEAD or CHERRY_PICK_HEAD etc. I'm not sure >> what it should do in the middle of a rebase or when cherry-picking a >> range of commits. I think it would be surprising if it was the >> equivalent of rebase/cherry-pick --quit but just clearing the conflicts >> in those contexts may not be very useful in practice. > > You already suggested above (outside the context of --discard-changes) > that we should just error out if there is some special mid-operation > state (be it from a merge, cherry-pick, rebase, or bisect). The user > can then manually resolve the operation first, or, perhaps use a > special override to force the switch command to proceed despite the > presence of mid-operation state. > > Personally, I'm leaning towards --discard-changes operating within > that same context; I think that mid-operation special state should > require a more explicit and operation-specific step to remove (e.g. > rebase --quit). I think that makes sense, I was wondering if --discard-changes should remove the state of a conflicted merge/single cherry-pick/revert but it is probably simpler and easier to understand just to error out. I think it should still clean up conflicts from other checkouts and applying stashes though as there is no other state in those cases. Best Wishes Phillip