Re: git pull suggestion

[Aghiles <aghilesk@gmail.com>]

King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I think we would do better to tell the user about stash there, so they
> can do it themselves. Then they know where their changes went and how to
> get them back. Since v1.6.5.5, this error message now says:
>
>  Your local changes to '%s' would be overwritten by merge.  Aborting.
>  Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can merge.
>
> What version of git are you using? If you (or others you are helping)
> saw that message and it wasn't helpful, do you have any suggestions for
> how to improve it?

Yes we have the latest version and we do see this message. This helps
a bit. Although for people used to CVS/CVN the "stash" is yet another thing
to learn. There is also a high probability for new users to see this message
very early when using git and the question is always the same: why can't git
just merge with my files and show me the conflict?

(There was also some usability issues with the "stash", I remember people
loosing _untracked_ files but I am not sure if that was PEBKAC. First versions
of stash had a very friendly syntax that punished you by obliterating your files
if you made a typo and some are still traumatized.)

Simply put: in git, your working directory is a second class citizen and git
doesn't want to deal with it. Fundamentally, this is in a collision course with
what some users think about their work in progress.

I started a similar discussion had a couple years ago:
http://lists-archives.org/git/635926-git-pull-opinion.html

Back then, I was certain that 'git pull' should have an option to mix with a
dirty tree but now, after a couple years of using the tool, I am not certain
anymore. I am just reporting the biggest frustrations I see with new users.

Thanks,

  -- aghiles