From: Andy Parkins <hidden> Date: 2016-08-11 20:42:09
Raimund Bauer offered this suggestion (paraphrased):
"Maybe we could do git-commit -a _only_ if the index matches HEAD, and
otherwise keep current behavior? So people who don't care about the
index won't get tripped up, and when you do have a dirty index, you get
told about it?"
Johannes Schindelin pointed out that this isn't the right thing to do for
an --amend, so that is checked for. Additionally, it's probably not the
right thing to do if any files are specified with "--only" or
"--include", so they turn this behaviour off as well.
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy asked that git-commit let you know it's done this
by adding an extra comment to the commit message.
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <redacted>
---
This time we also inhibit if "all" mode is already set; if the user
has specified "-a" we don't need to tell them that we've switched "-a"
mode on.
git-commit.sh | 10 ++++++++++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
@@ -265,6 +265,16 @@ $1"donecase"$edit_flag"int)no_edit=;;esac+# Clever commit - if this commit would do nothing, then make it an "all"+# commit+if[-z"$(git-diff-index--cached--name-onlyHEAD)"\+-a-z"$amend"-a-z"$only"-a-z"$also"-a-z"$all"];then+echo"# There was nothing to commit but changes were detected in the">$GIT_DIR/SQUASH_MSG+echo"# working tree. 'git commit -a' mode activated.">>$GIT_DIR/SQUASH_MSG+echo"#">>$GIT_DIR/SQUASH_MSG+all=t+fi+################################################################# Sanity check options
From: Andy Parkins <hidden> Date: 2016-08-11 19:24:29
On Saturday 2006, December 02 08:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Aside from the "working tree not matching index" safety valve I
asked for, there is a more important case that "when the index
matches HEAD" is not a safe enough check for this 'cleverness'.
As I pointed out, that safety valve made the whole thing a no-op.
So that is _another_ exception you must handle.
But I think the problem with this 'cleverer' commit runs
deeper.
Notice that you needed to say "The main idea is this cleverness,
but foo pointed out this special case, and bar pointed out
another, and we fixed all of these known ones and now this is
good, let's apply it." in your proposed commit log message? You
should smell fishiness in that kind of reasoning.
I don't believe so. In deep parts of a program cleverness is always a bad
idea. It just obfuscates functionality. However, this "cleverness" is about
making things easier for a human. Humans have a notoriously illogical set of
requirements for doing the right thing. As an example I'd hold up git's
clever date specification code; a computer would be perfectly happy to accept
epoch time, but instead humans like to be able to say "three weeks ago this
Thursday at five to four".
This patch is merely to make git-commit do something sensible when it would
normally do nothing. I was sure there would be more exceptions to when it
should activate; as git-commit is already a mess of "useful" extra switches.
To blame this patch for the fact that git-commit does a lot of things in
slightly different ways hardly seems fair.
As usual though: I don't mind, I'm not some huge proponent of this
functionality - /I/ get along fine with git-commit
I really think the users would be much better off with
consistent behaviour that is easy and simple to describe than a
complex magic that does the right thing 99.9% of the time,
because you either understand the complex magic or constantly in
fear of the tool that can work against you 0.01% of the time.
I suspect that this patch is the least of git-commit's problems in that
department. "Easy to describe" is certainly not the case already, otherwise
none of this discussion (or patch) would ever have started.
Andy
--
Dr Andrew Parkins, M Eng (Hons), AMIEE
From: Carl Worth <hidden> Date: 2016-08-11 19:30:55
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:09:09 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
But I think the problem with this 'cleverer' commit runs
deeper.
I agree. Being too clever is a problem.
It's very helpful to estimate usability and learnability by the length
of prose needed to describe a command.
1. With paths, "git commit <paths>" means "forget for a moment
the changes I staged to be committed, and make a commit that
includes only these paths (i.e. the new commit and the
current HEAD are different at exactly these paths and
nowhere else, and the new commit has contents from the
working tree for these paths)".
2. Without paths, "git commit" means "make a commit out of
everything I have told you to commit (aka 'staged') so far".
The primary ways to tell git to stage contents are "git
add/rm/mv". But as a short-hand, you can say "git commit
-a" to ask the command to place all the changes in the
working tree in the changeset to be committed before making
the new commit.
Junio, thanks so much for these descriptions. They help ground the
discussion quite nicely, (and will also contribute to improved
documentation).
Here's pseudo-code for the above descriptions:
if (command-line has paths) {
ignore staging area, commit named files
else {
if (commit -a)
update all files into staging area
commit staging area
}
One problem I see in that is that the primary distinction is made
based on what appears on the command-line, rather than what job the
user is trying to perform. Also, "commit -a" is define in terms of the
staging area, even though the staging area is basically irrelevant to
this operation, (just as it is in the case of a commit with paths).
So I would re-factor that in a way that focuses on what the user is
trying to do:
if (! doing a staged commit) {
if (file list is empty)
file list = all tracked files
commit file list
} else {
commit staging area
}
This brings the description of "commit -a" and "commit files..."
together, (which I think are conceptually more related than "commit
-a" is to a commit of the staging area, (and yes, this ignores the
history of the implementation). What we're talking about is how to
document what the user wants to do, not how the implementation does
it.
Notice also that "staging area" never appears in the description of
the else clause, (which is good since the conceptual use of these
commands does not involve staging).
So translating my re-factored version back into prose, we might get:
commit <paths>
commit -a
Commit the working-tree contents of the named <paths>, (or all
tracked paths for -a). Files which no longer exist in the
working tree will be removed. New files to be tracked must be
added with "git add".
commit
Commit the content that exists in the staging area. The
staging area initially consists of the contents of the most
recent commit, but can be modified with the "git add",
"git rm", and "git mv".
So that's shorter. I think it's also more clear and focused on what
the user wants to do without being any less accurate.
It doesn't make it obvious that "commit -a" is the most common form
and what users should look at first. So what I'd like to see is the
semantic changes that would allow us to document this as:
commit
commit <paths>
Commit the working-tree contents of all tracked paths, (or
just the specific paths listed). Files which no longer exist
in the working tree will be removed. New files to be tracked
must be added with "git add".
commit --staged
Commit the content that exists in the staging area. The
staging area initially consists of the contents of the most
recent commit, but updated content from the working tree can
be placed into it with "git stage <paths>".
-Carl
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2016-08-11 20:17:58
Andy Parkins [off-list ref] writes:
Raimund Bauer offered this suggestion (paraphrased):
"Maybe we could do git-commit -a _only_ if the index matches HEAD, and
otherwise keep current behavior? So people who don't care about the
index won't get tripped up, and when you do have a dirty index, you get
told about it?"
Johannes Schindelin pointed out that this isn't the right thing to do for
an --amend, so that is checked for. Additionally, it's probably not the
right thing to do if any files are specified with "--only" or
"--include", so they turn this behaviour off as well.
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy asked that git-commit let you know it's done this
by adding an extra comment to the commit message.
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <redacted>
Aside from the "working tree not matching index" safety valve I
asked for, there is a more important case that "when the index
matches HEAD" is not a safe enough check for this 'cleverness'.
It's related to this code in git-commit:
if [ "$?" != "0" -a ! -f "$GIT_DIR/MERGE_HEAD" -a -z "$amend" ]
then
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG" "$GIT_DIR/SQUASH_MSG"
run_status
exit 1
fi
This allows you to make a new commit with an identical tree as
the current HEAD, when making a merge.
We originally did not allow a commit that has identical tree
with its first parent. It was pointed out as a bug in the real
world setting, where two bugs are independently fixed by two
people, textually and also logically differently, and the merge
results in a conflict. In such a case, after examining the text
(git diff --cc) and motivation (git log --merge) of the changes
that conflicted from both ends, if you decide that you prefer
your own fix over the fix made by the other party, your edit of
the conflicted file would end up to be identical to what you had
originally in the HEAD.
In such a situation, it makes sense to record the fact that the
two development paths came to the same conclusion as a merge.
It would also simplify later merges from the other side, and the
merges the other side attempts by pulling from you.
So after you fix the conflicts, you would mark the conflicted
file with Nico's shiny new "git add". The index _still_ matches
HEAD. The 'cleverer' "git commit" would not notice this
situation and commits unrelated changes that the user does not
have any intention to commit in the working tree by mistake.
So that is _another_ exception you must handle.
But I think the problem with this 'cleverer' commit runs
deeper.
Notice that you needed to say "The main idea is this cleverness,
but foo pointed out this special case, and bar pointed out
another, and we fixed all of these known ones and now this is
good, let's apply it." in your proposed commit log message? You
should smell fishiness in that kind of reasoning.
It's not that you cannot be sure that these suggestions covered
all cases; you should not have to cover everything under the sun
in your initial revision. New exceptions can certainly be added
incrementally to address breakages. However, having to have
exception from the beginning is a sign that the general rule you
started from is a broken rule. To realize that yourself, Think
about how you would describe the behaviour to a new user.
The currently proposed rewording of "git add" and "git commit"
manual pages would define "git commit" to behave in two primary
modes:
1. With paths, "git commit <paths>" means "forget for a moment
the changes I staged to be committed, and make a commit that
includes only these paths (i.e. the new commit and the
current HEAD are different at exactly these paths and
nowhere else, and the new commit has contents from the
working tree for these paths)".
2. Without paths, "git commit" means "make a commit out of
everything I have told you to commit (aka 'staged') so far".
The primary ways to tell git to stage contents are "git
add/rm/mv". But as a short-hand, you can say "git commit
-a" to ask the command to place all the changes in the
working tree in the changeset to be committed before making
the new commit.
How would your version be described?
1. (ditto)
2. (ditto). However, there are number of exceptions you should
be aware of:
2-a. The above general rule only applies if you have already
told git to stage something for the next commit.
2-b. However, even if you had told git to stage new contents,
if the new contents happen to be the same as HEAD, then
the command grabs every change in the working tree and
makes a commit out of it.
2-c. Contrary to the above exception, even if you staged the
same contents as in HEAD, if you are in the middle of the
merge, it does not include the working tree changes in the
new commit. This is because....
2-d. Another exception is that if you are amending an existing
commit, ... This is because....
With careful reading, the users may understand it after they
read the above description, but would that understanding really
be committed to memory? Are you confident that you will
remember your own reasoning for the exceptions and be prepared
to defend this change (and perhaps follow-up additions to the
list of exceptions), if 6 months down the road when an old timer
from the kernel circle says "I updated to recent git, and its
'commit' behaves funnily in the way I did not expect. Why does
it do that"?
I really think the users would be much better off with
consistent behaviour that is easy and simple to describe than a
complex magic that does the right thing 99.9% of the time,
because you either understand the complex magic or constantly in
fear of the tool that can work against you 0.01% of the time.