Re: [PATCH] [checkout-index] Give names to stages

[Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>]

--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Sometimes when I pull things from a bunch of places and do
> > a resolve, I'm presented with the standard resolve format of
> > a source file, "<<<< ==== >>>>" thingie, and all I'd really
> > like to do is "accept ours".  I.e. something similar to what I've
> > seen in other (commercial) SCMs, a la "scm resolve accept ours".
> >
> > This patch merely allows the user to say
> >    git-checkout-index --stage=ours their_broken_file.c
> > instead of
> >    git-checkout-index --stage=2 their_broken_file.c
> > and similarly for "theirs", etc.
> 
> That's _exactly_ my point.  It "merely allows to".
> 
> > If you think this breaks the ideology, ok.
> 
> It's not about the ideology.  It's in the part you quoted but
> did not respond to (by the way, please don't quote the the bulk
> of the message if you are not responding to it).
> 
> You stopped at only adding "ours" as synonym for "2" and did not
> do anything else in the patch; it is a very sensible thing to
> do, because "checkout-index" is a plumbing command that is about
> checking out files from the index to the working tree.
> 
> But that means you HAVE TO stop at that because you are working
> at the plumbing layer.  You said yourself that what you really
> wanted to do was "scm resolve accept ours".  And from an end
> user's point of view, "checkout --stage=ours" is NOT it.
> 
> A user who wants to see "accept ours" wants the scm to perform:
> 
> 	git checkout-index --stage=2 paths...
>       git update-index paths... ;# or Nico's "git add"

Yes, that's what I normally do.

> for him.  That is why I suggested to hoist the place you
> implement this usability improvement up one level and make the
> Porcelain level command:
> 
> 	git checkout --ours paths...
> 
> to do the above two plumbing command sequence internally for the
> end user.

Ok.

    Luben