On Oct 3, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:

quoted text
> El 3/10/2007, a las 10:57, Miles Bader escribi=F3:
>
>> To the extent that a command _is_ "dangerous", there's always a =20
>> tradeoff
>> between convenience and "danger".  Some systems (e.g. those aimed at
>> newbies) might have as a goal to do the absolute minimum with every
>> command and always, always, err on the side of safety.  I don't =20
>> think git
>> is that system.
>
> While much of this debate can be shortcircuited simply by making =20
> the behaviour configurable, I would like to take you up on the =20
> point that you raise here.
>
> If we're going to talk about what kind of system Git is then =20
> consider this:
>
> - it's inherently distributed and this design actively encourages =20
> users to treat their local repositories as sandboxes where things =20
> are tried out, perfected, and then pushed out into the public via =20
> one means or another
>
> - it's built from the ground up to be good at branching and =20
> merging; this, combined with my previous point, means that users =20
> are likely to have multiple heads and often some of them will be =20
> "works in progress" that aren't yet ready for publication
>
> So it's in that light I see accidentally pushing more than you =20
> thought you would as "dangerous"; when you make this mistake you're =20=

quoted text
> basically making stuff available that's not yet ready for =20
> consumption, and by its nature this mistake is basically =20
> irreversible: you can't really "unpush" what you pushed, you can =20
> only push out additional amendments which correct it.
>
> So, in this light, when you say:
>
>> What's "dangerous" for newbies, often ends up being what doesn't
>> correspond with their mental model.
>
> I don't know how much it has to do with mental models. I think in =20
> this case it's a bit simpler than that where you make the mistake =20
> once or twice and very quickly learn that "git push" means "push =20
> what's in my repo", not "push only what's on my current branch". =20
> It's a *very* easy lesson to learn if you get burnt and hardly =20
> requires any adjustments to ones "mental model".
>
> I personally would be in favour of changing the default because I =20
> tend to work on a particular branch at a time and then want to push =20=

quoted text
> *that* out -- generally I'm thinking about one general area or one =20
> task at a time, and that means one branch at a time; I almost never =20=

quoted text
> think along the lines of getting all my branches into shape at once =20=

quoted text
> and then pushing them out in a batch. I think this is more likely =20
> to be a common pattern, although obviously that remains speculation =20=

quoted text
> at this point.
>
> Changing the default would be great for people like me; by not =20
> having to pass additional parameters to git-push I save some =20
> keystrokes. If I ever want to push everything an "--all" switch =20
> would do the job. But if people prefer to keep the old default then =20=

quoted text
> there'll be .gitconfig for people like me. In any case I think more =20=

quoted text
> people need to speak up on the topic so that we can find out what =20
> most people really think about changing the default.
>

I completely second all that.  I've been using Git for roughly 3 =20
months and have been burnt the same way.

--=20
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory