Re: VC mode and git

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > Depends on the interpretation of "easy", I guess.  I think it should
 > be possible to define that such that this wouldn't be an impossible
 > standard.  Basically, the "fixing" part should involve a couple of
 > simple commands.

Well, often it will be.  But if you don't put restrictions on the
user's behavior, there's no way to be sure of that, and it's
definitely possible for a user to wedge themselves completely (see
Alan's testimony that some operations related to git completely
obliterated some changes).

What I'm saying is that there's a sensible and precise way to define
the requirement, which is to make commit-and-push atomic.  This
requires that if any part of the operation fails, git must reproduce
the state immediately before the commit (including any staged changes
such as file add).

 > > For example, I have no fscking idea how Richard put his workspace
 > > into a state where git thinks a zillion source files are modified.
 > 
 > I think those are just the files brought by "pull", but not merged due
 > to conflicts.

Yeah, I realized that when Harald pointed it out.  I avoid that in
several ways (frequent pulls are part of it, but more important I stay
committed up locally).