Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

But a problem I see with the patch as an implementation of "git-what" is
that some commands use other commands as their internal implementation
details.  For example, when you are in the middle of a "git rebase"
session, which might be using "git am" as its internal implementation
detail, if you ask the "are you in the middle of doing something, and if
so how can I continue?" question (which is what the "git-cmd --what" is
all about) to "git am", before you ask the same question to "git rebase",
"am" could say "Yeah, I have applied a few patches successfully but gave
control back to the user to resolve conflicts while applying this patch",
which may be a truthful statement from "git am"'s point of view, but is
not a useful information from the end user's point of view, as all s/he
typed was "git rebase".  In addition, if Porcelain X uses Porcelain Y as
its internal implementation, the series of commands that need to be
followed to continue from a particular sequence point might be different
between the case where the toplevel request was Y and the case where it
was X.  Not just X needs to know that it uses Y, Y also needs to know that
the toplevel command the end user gave could be X which called it and
behave differently.  So a nice "each command knows what its doing"
separation cannot really solve everything in practice.

This is the job of the git-what, so it first call "git rebase --what"
and then "git am --what", and the individual "git cmd --what" can be
declared internal.

In other words, "git-X --what" could give a guidance to the "I've done X,
now what can I do?" situation, but it by itself cannot be used as a basis
of "git-what" to answer "I'm totally lost and I do not know what I was
doing.  Where was I and what should I do next?"  question.

I think it does, it is exactly what my patch does, IMHO.

Santi