Re: git pull suggestion

From: Aghiles <aghilesk@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2010, 06:01 UTC
Message-ID: <m2v3abd05a91004102301i95bf7091ib2bd9da5e8a208c1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100410043535.GA22481@coredump.intra.peff.net>

King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> I think we would do better to tell the user about stash there, so they
> can do it themselves. Then they know where their changes went and how to
> get them back. Since v1.6.5.5, this error message now says:
>
>  Your local changes to '%s' would be overwritten by merge.  Aborting.
>  Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can merge.
>
> What version of git are you using? If you (or others you are helping)
> saw that message and it wasn't helpful, do you have any suggestions for
> how to improve it?

Yes we have the latest version and we do see this message. This helps a bit. Although for people used to CVS/CVN the "stash" is yet another thing to learn. There is also a high probability for new users to see this message very early when using git and the question is always the same: why can't git just merge with my files and show me the conflict?

(There was also some usability issues with the "stash", I remember people loosing _untracked_ files but I am not sure if that was PEBKAC. First versions of stash had a very friendly syntax that punished you by obliterating your files if you made a typo and some are still traumatized.)

Simply put: in git, your working directory is a second class citizen and git doesn't want to deal with it. Fundamentally, this is in a collision course with what some users think about their work in progress.

I started a similar discussion had a couple years ago: http://lists-archives.org/git/635926-git-pull-opinion.html

Back then, I was certain that 'git pull' should have an option to mix with a dirty tree but now, after a couple years of using the tool, I am not certain anymore. I am just reporting the biggest frustrations I see with new users.

Thanks,

  -- aghiles