From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Command-line interface thoughts Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:23:59 -0700 Message-ID: <7v8vtf9bds.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vwrgza3i2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4DEC8322.6040200@drmicha.warpmail.net> <201106061419.34599.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Michael J Gruber , Scott Chacon , Michael Nahas , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 06 18:24:23 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QTcbG-0005EW-LG for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:24:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755343Ab1FFQYQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:24:16 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:41971 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755147Ab1FFQYN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:24:13 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A9457E7; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Y+AaS4+BiqakVIS7YNQf00OcrCc=; b=gTKDhF gmh4cSdPuNb5rplEe/wnQxxYePZFkdmR3ZU8JUpRKz07P0KA6SI0Yz7aRGuX70Ki Jq/VoNNDXAUZ8NS8bmz+VYrdNmyqWfOe55gPQsUySRS/mVwEbg+z4+kzdGME7DJo /gudGTfsQdaC5lKg2Vm1MZa+Hr//XhM8RjZIE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=H0gVUP/SWEYuSEzQOurWqizkrjlsxPRM Vjlja0RimTynHrGN27U9xrAV4pzFJWiruG2+/+9wA49GhxG4CZ/czEGMOOoard29 1auPNkVL6PGZFsi3hKo/Q/k99At3JzBGKuITVUCXqMacnQzHUz3XtQ0b2XA6GngA ONQDXQQosyc= Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB2457E4; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B669A57E1; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:26:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <201106061419.34599.jnareb@gmail.com> (Jakub Narebski's message of "Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:19:32 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B50C9F82-9059-11E0-BBCF-EA23C7C1A288-77302942!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski writes: > On Mon, 6 June 2011, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > So what you suggest would make > > $ git diff NEXT WTREE > > behave differently from > > $ git diff > > and > > $ git diff HEAD NEXT > > behave differently from > > $ git diff --cached > > Do you really think that it is good idea? I do not know if Michael is suggesting to make it different, but if the difference is an improvement, it may be a good thing. Being different from the current behaviour should not be a basis for automatic rejection --- otherwise we won't make any progress. I just don't know what the plans by advocates of this NEXT/WTREE are for conflicted cases [*1*] to tell how they want to make the user experience, so I cannot even tell if they want something different, let alone to judge if the proposed difference is an improvement. [Footnote] *1* There may be other equally important corner cases, but let's tackle one simple and obvious thing first to see where this goes.