From: Nicolas Pitre Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:09:27 GMT Subject: Re: 'commit -a' safety (was: Re: Please default to 'commit -a' when no changes were added) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100424185433.GN3563@machine.or.cz> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Petr Baudis wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:35:17PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > In that case the deficiency is in the fact that no reflog preserves the > > intermediate state of the index, not the fact that you might be allowed > > to do it. Strictly speaking there is no intermediate ref to log, but a > > synthetic commit could be created for this case just like a stash but > > stored in the current branch's reflog. > > Possibly, but I don't see how is this better than the check - it is less > user friendly, most importantly because user that has not seen this > twice has no idea that anything *was* saved to a reflog. Possibly. But the fact that some data could be lost here is a flaw. The reflog is the safety net making sure that whatever the user does is not completely destructive. > Are there valid user scenarios where you customize your index, then want > to override that using -a without thinking twice? Admittedly there aren't many. And in those few hypothetical cases then requiring -f would be acceptable. Nicolas