On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:37:33PM -0600, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:59:18PM -0500, Kirby C. Bohling wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 10:32:01AM -0600, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> > <snip...>
> > > Another example is if I'm working on a commit and suddenly get a
> > > brilliant idea for some easy modification that I want to make and commit
> > > by itself before making this commit.  I can do this easily with
> > > 
> > >         % git undo
> > >         % carefully make easy change
> > >         % git commit
> > >         % git redo
> > > 
> > > Having a light-weight alternative like this could make the difference
> > > between realizing the easy, brilliant idea and forgetting about it on
> > > the back burner because it was just too cumbersome to make the context
> > > switch.
> > > 
> > > The bottom line is that I don't argue against using the existing
> > > work-flows.  I hope to add the flexibility to use various work-flows to
> > > fit the job at hand.
> > > 
> > <snip...>
> > 
> > [Not much of a git user, but am evaluating it for possible future
> > usage]... 
> > 
> > Why not just save the changes to a file via a patch.  Just like you
> > would if you were sending a patch to someone else.  I have the work
> > flow you are talking about when I use CVS.  I just create a patch,
> > apply the patch in reverse (or run the command to get you a clean
> > working tree in the SCM).  Make my unrelated changes commit it.
> > Then apply the patch, possibly resolve merge conflicts,  and proceed
> > with finishing my original work.
> I used to do this with CVS too.  For you and me, people who are patch
> savy veterans, this is great!  However, as easy as it is I knew very few
> other developers who even thought about doing it.  In the real world,
> many people see a huge difference between:
> git diff-cache > $patchfile
> cat $patchfile | patch -R -p1
> do work
> cat $patchfile | patch -p1
> git undo
> do work
> git redo
> The first one simply never happens with most developers.  Most don't
> really think of doing something outside the tool.  The second option
> will likely get used.  Plus, I know at least one person here who is very
> good with patches and working outside the tool and still would love to
> have the second approach available.

I guess I can see that.  I just see it as much easier to manage
multiple undo-redo states manually.  I mean, I wouldn't make anyone
use git directly if the difference between the two commands bothers
them.  git seems too low a level.  I would think one of the
procelains would be be a better level.  However, having a unified
interface for all the porcelains seems a reasonable request.

> Is there something wrong with having flexibility?  It seems most of the
> criticism of this feature is that there is already a way to accomplish
> what I want to do.  Tools that can't be used flexibly are not tools that
> I like to use.  Heck, I'm on UNIX aren't I?
> Oops, sorry for the rant.  I'm really not in a bad mood... really.  I
> hope it didn't sound like that :-).  Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest
> that git is not flexible in other regards.  I think its great!  Moving
> along...
> > Assuming your patch creation and application tools capture all the
> > meta-data the SCM has (which I believe git does), it's pretty simple
> > to simulate what you want manaully.  With only a handful of
> > commands.
> I can simulate git manually too with just a few more commands.  Where's
> the cutoff?

Yes and no.  I meant the order and style of commands was nearly
identical.  I meant applying the command line in reverse was the
only additional step.  As a workflow, I'd just document it in the
HOWTO's.  I'm a minimalist in that sense.  Sure, I use more then
echo, redirection and netcat even though in theory I could send you
this e-mail with it.  IMHO, the above undo/redo doesn't seem to save
enough effort to me.  I wouldn't bother learning undo/redo unless it
was superior to the patch way, it's just one more thing I'd have to

> > I see the appeal of not having manually deal with the files, but
> > assuming you don't feel it's branch worthy, and you don't want to
> > have it be something someone else can access externally, it doesn't
> > seem like a feature I can't get almost as simply with existing git
> > commands.  
> Not having to manually manage a set of patches may seem small but it
> reduces a barrier that may otherwise be just high enough to hurt
> productivity in certain situations.

I don't mean to discourge it's implementation, I really questioned
it because I figured there had to be some more subtle implications I
didn't understand about undo/redo that patch couldn't capture.  It
also seems like multiple levels of undo/redo or undo/redo on
multiple branches could get tricky for the user to track and for git
to be able to display the information to the user sanely.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to