From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] builtin-checkout: suggest creating local branch when appropriate to do so Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:31:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20091014043150.GB28795@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <0016e68fd0123a175304754694b4@google.com> <200910130836.57011.trast@student.ethz.ch> <7vljjf226t.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <200910131051.47117.trast@student.ethz.ch> <7vy6nfwssk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091013220640.GB12603@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Thomas Rast , Euguess@gmail.com, Mikael Magnusson , Matthieu Moy , Jay Soffian , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Sixt To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 14 06:39:55 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MxveO-00086a-Oa for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:39:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751197AbZJNEc0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:32:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751131AbZJNEc0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:32:26 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:34476 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751104AbZJNEc0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:32:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 24179 invoked by uid 107); 14 Oct 2009 04:35:21 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:35:21 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:31:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 01:22:26AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > At some point, trying to educate the user is not helpful but annoying. If > Git already knows what I want, why does it not do it already? _That_ is > the question I already hear in my ears. I am not entirely convinced that the suggested behaviors will result in that user response, or a different one (like "why does git keep giving me bad advice?"). Which is why I suggested data collection. > > So doing step (1) would be a way of collecting some of that data (will > > users say "stupid git, if you knew what I wanted, why didn't you just do > > it?" or "stupid git, your suggestion is just confusing me!"). > > I disagree. It is not about collecting data. We will not get any > feedback from the affected people. You know that, I know that. I don't agree. You are already talking about users complaining about git's interface. Isn't that feedback? How do you hear those complaints now? I don't think they will come on the list and talk about it, but if we release a version of git that has differing behavior and give it some time to be used in the wild, we _will_ get feedback in the form of blogs, complaints on other lists, word-of-mouth, etc. Now maybe that is not a good idea in this instance, because that sort of feedback may take several versions to appear, and we are talking about a potential timetable of v1.7.0, which is probalby only two versions away. -Peff