Re: Command-line interface thoughts

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 6, 2011, 16:14 UTC
Message-ID: <7vd3ir9btd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <4DECE147.3060808@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> That is why I asked what the user experience of "git show NEXT" as opposed
>> to "git show INDEX" should look like. So what should it look like during a
>> "pull" that did not finish?
>
> If NEXT is to mean the result of a commit in the current state, and the
> current state would or should not allow a commit, then trying to access
> that pseudo-commit should error out with a helpful message.

What "helpful message"? I asked for the user experience, not handwaving.

Do you mean to say that the error message would teach the user that the current state is not something you can create a commit? What message would that give the end user? I am hoping the following is not what will happen:

  Q. I tried "git show NEXT" because I wanted to see what the next commit
     would look like, but I got an error, saying NEXT is not known as I
     haven't resolved a conflict.

  A. Yes, the message is correct.

  Q. But then how can I see what the next commit would look like?

  A. You would say "git diff HEAD NEXT".

  Q. Ah, that is the same as I always do before making a commit to see what
     I have added so far look sane. Thanks.

     ...after 2 minutes...

  Q. Sorry, it does not work. I get the same error, that says NEXT is not
     known yet.

  A. Ok, you would say "git diff HEAD" the old fashioned way. The person
     who thought NEXT would be useful didn't think things through.

  Q. Now I am seeing a diff between the conflicted state and the previous
     commit, I think I can get to where I want to go from here. Thanks.

Show 6 quoted lines

> Another option is to make NEXT/INDEX mean a tree (:0:). I have not
> thought this through (and have not made a suggestion, accordingly) but I
> do see a problem in the UI. (I don't think we need to change the
> existing ui in that respect but can amend and improve it.)
>
> Anyway, it's rc phase :)

Rc or not rc, just repeating a fuzzy and uncooked "idea" around phoney ref-looking names that will end up confusing the users, and selling that as if it is a logical conclusion to "we want to give an easier to understand UI", without presenting a solid user experience design that is convincing enough that the "idea" will reduce confusion will not get us anywhere, especially when it is sprinkled with ad hominem attack at me.