Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next

>
> But a problem I see with the patch as an implementation of "git-what" is
> that some commands use other commands as their internal implementation
> details.  For example, when you are in the middle of a "git rebase"
> session, which might be using "git am" as its internal implementation
> detail, if you ask the "are you in the middle of doing something, and if
> so how can I continue?" question (which is what the "git-cmd --what" is
> all about) to "git am", before you ask the same question to "git rebase",
> "am" could say "Yeah, I have applied a few patches successfully but gave
> control back to the user to resolve conflicts while applying this patch",
> which may be a truthful statement from "git am"'s point of view, but is
> not a useful information from the end user's point of view, as all s/he
> typed was "git rebase".  In addition, if Porcelain X uses Porcelain Y as
> its internal implementation, the series of commands that need to be
> followed to continue from a particular sequence point might be different
> between the case where the toplevel request was Y and the case where it
> was X.  Not just X needs to know that it uses Y, Y also needs to know that
> the toplevel command the end user gave could be X which called it and
> behave differently.  So a nice "each command knows what its doing"
> separation cannot really solve everything in practice.

>
> In other words, "git-X --what" could give a guidance to the "I've done X,
> now what can I do?" situation, but it by itself cannot be used as a basis
> of "git-what" to answer "I'm totally lost and I do not know what I was
> doing.  Where was I and what should I do next?"  question.