From: "Santi Béjar" <sbejar@gmail.com>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:12:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8aa486160805280212u742a311gef61676870af147@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vwslfzd0i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> But a problem I see with the patch as an implementation of "git-what" is
> that some commands use other commands as their internal implementation
> details. For example, when you are in the middle of a "git rebase"
> session, which might be using "git am" as its internal implementation
> detail, if you ask the "are you in the middle of doing something, and if
> so how can I continue?" question (which is what the "git-cmd --what" is
> all about) to "git am", before you ask the same question to "git rebase",
> "am" could say "Yeah, I have applied a few patches successfully but gave
> control back to the user to resolve conflicts while applying this patch",
> which may be a truthful statement from "git am"'s point of view, but is
> not a useful information from the end user's point of view, as all s/he
> typed was "git rebase". In addition, if Porcelain X uses Porcelain Y as
> its internal implementation, the series of commands that need to be
> followed to continue from a particular sequence point might be different
> between the case where the toplevel request was Y and the case where it
> was X. Not just X needs to know that it uses Y, Y also needs to know that
> the toplevel command the end user gave could be X which called it and
> behave differently. So a nice "each command knows what its doing"
> separation cannot really solve everything in practice.
This is the job of the git-what, so it first call "git rebase --what"
and then "git am --what", and the individual "git cmd --what" can be
declared internal.
>
> In other words, "git-X --what" could give a guidance to the "I've done X,
> now what can I do?" situation, but it by itself cannot be used as a basis
> of "git-what" to answer "I'm totally lost and I do not know what I was
> doing. Where was I and what should I do next?" question.
I think it does, it is exactly what my patch does, IMHO.
Santi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-28 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-27 8:34 [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next Santi Béjar
2008-05-27 10:53 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-05-27 12:58 ` Santi Béjar
2008-05-27 13:12 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-05-27 13:37 ` Santi Béjar
2008-05-27 13:52 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2008-05-27 14:21 ` Santi Béjar
2008-05-27 18:08 ` Steven Walter
2008-05-27 20:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-05-27 20:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-05-28 9:12 ` Santi Béjar [this message]
2008-05-29 4:39 ` Christian Couder
2008-05-29 5:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-05-29 14:56 ` Jon Loeliger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8aa486160805280212u742a311gef61676870af147@mail.gmail.com \
--to=sbejar@gmail.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).