From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC 1/2] Make the list of common commands more exclusive Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:26:10 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhcjr53hp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071111235819.GB7392@thunk.org> <1194829077-14320-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <7vzlxk8apz.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071112062222.GA17462@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List To: Theodore Tso X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 12 08:26:35 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IrTgo-0003Qv-6p for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:26:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752850AbXKLH0S (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752748AbXKLH0S (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:18 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:57868 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752800AbXKLH0R (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:17 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD092F2; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823E894A13; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:35 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071112062222.GA17462@thunk.org> (Theodore Tso's message of "Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:22:22 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Theodore Tso writes: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 06:21:44PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> I am fine with this list, perhaps except apply. > > I was borderline on apply, but given that people are familiar with > patch -p1, the only real advantage git-apply has is that automatically > deals with new files (which "git commit -a" or "git add -u" won't > automatically get). Although more importantly git-apply is much more strict and safer than patch by default, that distinction will probably not register with total newbies; not much would be lost if we do not list git-apply, I'd guess. > What did you think about cherry-pick? Was that omitted by accident? As "git show | git apply --index" would be good enough for simple projects, omission of git-cherry-pick is not as serious compared to ommission of git-revert, whose alternatives would be "commit --amend" and "rebase" which are not suitable for published history. > My mental model for git newbies is that they would probably be pulling > from upstream repositories (so I was tempted to remove git-init from > the common commands list), but they would rarely be cherry-picking or > reverting other people's changes. I'd agree with that, but reverting and cherry-picking would also be done on the commits the user builds on top of other people's changes. > They probably would be submitting changes back upstream using e-mail > before they learn how to publish their own repository, so commands I'd > be tempted to add would include git-format-patch, git-send-email, and > git-cherry. But these commands are pretty complicated for beginners.... I'd half agree with that. People coming from CVS workflow will be pushing and pulling from their central repositories, without format-patch and send-email. For them revert would matter more together with fetch, rebase and push.