From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
spearce@spearce.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] git-gui: change to display the combined diff in the case of conflicts.
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 07:52:44 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <v2z2cfc40321003311252s86d44ad7l540559eafb0636d4@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BB3534E.3080803@viscovery.net>
| apologies - missed the list
I agree that removing the options is better than preserving the
current behaviour,
My argument is simply this:
That it is better to inform a user that an action is potentially
dangerous than to "protect" them from
a "scaring" amount of diff -c output by presenting a conflict-only
summary. You claimed this output was "uninteresting" and hence should
be suppressed, my point was that supresssing output because it was
"uninteresting" is a dangerous thing to do because it is relevant to a
decision not to act.
My preference for options are:
* preserve the actions, but provide more information to the user
* remove the actions
* preserve the actions, make the safer output the default and enable
the simpler, more dangerous output as an option
* preserve the actions, make the current output the default and enable
the safer, less dangerous output an option.
* do nothing
We disagree about the relative order of options 1 and 2. But
seriously, if you agree the actions are dangerous I can't see how you
can argue that is preferable to suppress the scary amount of diff -c
output.
I would imagine that a change that proposed to remove the actions,
without an option to enable them, would encounter stiff resistance
from the list. However, perhaps the list can respond?
jon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-31 19:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-30 15:34 [PATCH v3 0/2] git-gui: change to display the combined diff in the case of conflicts Jon Seymour
2010-03-31 7:20 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-03-31 11:12 ` Jon Seymour
2010-03-31 11:39 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-03-31 11:50 ` Jon Seymour
2010-03-31 12:23 ` Jon Seymour
2010-03-31 13:51 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-03-31 19:52 ` Jon Seymour [this message]
2010-04-02 8:37 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-04-04 6:44 ` Jon Seymour
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=v2z2cfc40321003311252s86d44ad7l540559eafb0636d4@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jon.seymour@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
/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).