Re: What's in git.git (stable)

On Thursday 2006 December 14 23:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

There truly is something wrong with me.

I did not mean it that way.  I only took it as a sign that maybe

Don't worry; I've got thicker skin than that.  I was simply amazed at my lack 
of comprehension ability. :-)

quoted

I'm not sure about your "commit -b"; is it wise to have /another/ way of
making a branch?  I mean - I'm clearly confused enough, have a heart :-)

I said "commit -b <newbranch>" and deliberately avoided saying
"commit -b <anybranch>", because I did not want to open another
can of worms while we are discussing so many good things
already, and my head can hold only a handful topics at once.

Absolutely.  I'd agree that only <newbranch> is worth even considering.

 * While working on it, I find an obvious bug that I would not
   want to fix on the branch (the topic branch I am currently on
   is not about fixing that bug).

I find myself swayed by this.  This is indeed something that happens to me a 
lot.  In certain circumstances I've been defeated by git because I couldn't 
switch to the other branch to make that quick commit because my local changes 
conflicted with that other branch.  The solution I use is to commit the bug 
fix in the wrong branch, finish my current on-topic commit then 
rebase/reset/etc to put everything where it should be.

I do agree that it adds one more way to do the same thing and
would make the documentation noisier, potentially adding more to
the confusion.  So let's not go there.

Yep.  Although you've persuaded me with the above example, I think this is the 
correct path.  It's not wise to add every bell and whistle just because we 
can.  As long as there is /a/ way to achieve every task, that's good enough, 
we don't need every way to achieve every task.  We might even argue that 
git's flexibility is what makes it harder to learn.  It's similar to UNIX in 
that respect - hard to learn, easy to use.


Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE