Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2021, #07; Mon, 29)

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 6, 2021, 17:37 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGk9fYqtuYTACmzdXakpV7TP635eqHtHxkoHRT3aa4qFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqilw2i6w1.fsf@gitster.g>

On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 10:28 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

>
> Aleen 徐沛文 <pwxu@coremail.cn> writes:
>
> > Dears Hamano,
> >
> >     In my opinion, the '--empty' should act as a strategy option like the
> >     'X' option to 'git-rebase'. Since that the default behaviour of not passing
> >     the option is stopped in the middle of an am session, should the 'die' value
> >     dies the whole process but not the middle state? It may also make it not
> >     confusing.
>
> Hmph, unlike "git rebase" or "git merge", "git am" does not employ
> different strategy backends, so "-X<option>" would be out of place,
> I would think.
>
> Among what we already have, what kills the entire session is called
> "git am --abort".  Since I do not find it unnatural to say "'git am'
> dies" when it stops and gives control back to the user, so that the
> user can decide what to do next, I am not sure where the aversion to
> the word comes from

When I first read the documentation, it sounded to me like it was implying an abort. I find 'die' very unnatural as a way to explain this behavior; it's too strong of a word.

> (on the other hand, I find 'ask' highly
> unnatural since we do not ask anything---we just throw the control
> back the user).

Okay, but what about my previous suggestions of 'stop' or 'interrupt'?