patchRe: [PATCH] [checkout-index] Give names to stages

> Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > One can now say "git-checkout-index --stage=ours ..."  or
> > "git-checkout-index --stage=theirs ...", instead of having
> > to remember the corresponding number assigned to each stage.
> 
> I really do not like to have this in checkout-index; I would
> rather keep checkout-index a purely plumbing thing.  If there
> are valid and frequently appearing use cases that currently
> requires "checkout-index --stage=$n", I think that need should
> be addressed as a missing feature in the UI layer.

> During a conflicted merge, you may run "diff --cc" in order to
> decide that you would want to take yours (or theirs), and that
> would be a good reason to wanting to checkout "your" version (or
> "their" version; but I do not think of a valid reason to want to
> say "checkout-index --stage=1").  From the UI point of view, it
> would make more sense to be able to say:
> 
> 	$ git checkout --ours hello.c
> 	$ git checkout --theirs Makefile
> 
> If the user is interested in looking at raw copies of our and
> their version for comparison (not just "diff --theirs" kind of
> usage), it _might_ even make sense to be able to do:
> 
> 	$ git checkout --stdout --ours hello.c >hello.c-ours
> 	$ git checkout --stdout --theirs hello.c >hello.c-theirs
>         $ diff -u hello.c-ours hello.c-theirs
> 
> I do not particularly like the above overloaded meaning of
> "checkout" myself, but that would be something people who are
> used to "cvs up -p" might expect to be able to do.
> 
> If we were to do both of the above, then it might even make
> sense to make the first form (sans --stdout) to also mark the
> index entry after checking out the specified higher stage.
> 
> And the UI layer (Porcelain-ish) should be where we should add
> the "usability" and "human readability" bits.

> Sometimes when I pull things from a bunch of places and do
> a resolve, I'm presented with the standard resolve format of
> a source file, "<<<< ==== >>>>" thingie, and all I'd really
> like to do is "accept ours".  I.e. something similar to what I've
> seen in other (commercial) SCMs, a la "scm resolve accept ours".
>
> This patch merely allows the user to say
>    git-checkout-index --stage=ours their_broken_file.c
> instead of
>    git-checkout-index --stage=2 their_broken_file.c
> and similarly for "theirs", etc.

> Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Sometimes when I pull things from a bunch of places and do
> > a resolve, I'm presented with the standard resolve format of
> > a source file, "<<<< ==== >>>>" thingie, and all I'd really
> > like to do is "accept ours".  I.e. something similar to what I've
> > seen in other (commercial) SCMs, a la "scm resolve accept ours".
> >
> > This patch merely allows the user to say
> >    git-checkout-index --stage=ours their_broken_file.c
> > instead of
> >    git-checkout-index --stage=2 their_broken_file.c
> > and similarly for "theirs", etc.
> 
> That's _exactly_ my point.  It "merely allows to".
> 
> > If you think this breaks the ideology, ok.
> 
> It's not about the ideology.  It's in the part you quoted but
> did not respond to (by the way, please don't quote the the bulk
> of the message if you are not responding to it).
> 
> You stopped at only adding "ours" as synonym for "2" and did not
> do anything else in the patch; it is a very sensible thing to
> do, because "checkout-index" is a plumbing command that is about
> checking out files from the index to the working tree.
> 
> But that means you HAVE TO stop at that because you are working
> at the plumbing layer.  You said yourself that what you really
> wanted to do was "scm resolve accept ours".  And from an end
> user's point of view, "checkout --stage=ours" is NOT it.
> 
> A user who wants to see "accept ours" wants the scm to perform:
> 
> 	git checkout-index --stage=2 paths...
>       git update-index paths... ;# or Nico's "git add"

> for him.  That is why I suggested to hoist the place you
> implement this usability improvement up one level and make the
> Porcelain level command:
> 
> 	git checkout --ours paths...
> 
> to do the above two plumbing command sequence internally for the
> end user.

> This patch merely allows the user to say
>    git-checkout-index --stage=ours their_broken_file.c
> instead of
>    git-checkout-index --stage=2 their_broken_file.c
> and similarly for "theirs", etc.

> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> 
>> This patch merely allows the user to say
>>    git-checkout-index --stage=ours their_broken_file.c
>> instead of
>>    git-checkout-index --stage=2 their_broken_file.c
>> and similarly for "theirs", etc.
> 
> Dunno. When this problem hits me, I usually do
> 
>       git diff --theirs their_broken_file.c
> 
> anyway, to see what it is doing (colour and all). When I am satisfied, 
> that "theirs" is really what I want, I just go back one in history, and 
> append a call to git-apply like this:
> 
>       git diff --theirs their_broken_file.c | git apply --index

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > 
> >> This patch merely allows the user to say
> >>    git-checkout-index --stage=ours their_broken_file.c
> >> instead of
> >>    git-checkout-index --stage=2 their_broken_file.c
> >> and similarly for "theirs", etc.
> > 
> > Dunno. When this problem hits me, I usually do
> > 
> >       git diff --theirs their_broken_file.c
> > 
> > anyway, to see what it is doing (colour and all). When I am satisfied, 
> > that "theirs" is really what I want, I just go back one in history, and 
> > append a call to git-apply like this:
> > 
> >       git diff --theirs their_broken_file.c | git apply --index
> 
> Then
> 
>         git checkout --theirs their_broken_file.c
> 
> is obvious simplification.