3 ms·

This is an awesome idea. Can't wait to hear the objections from the purists.

• idoubtit 5y ago
  I've watched the first case: amend a commit then undo. And I believe it shows serious shortcomings : - The interactive interface of `git undo` is probably too hard for beginners. Designing simple interfaces is hard, and you can't pplease everyone. - It seems `git undo` simply does a `git reset--hard` toward a designed commit. The user probably expected to return to the state before the last git action. Instead `git undo` reverted the amend, but also reset the index and remove the local changes. At this point, the beginner could scream "Undo lost my changes! I just wanted a second commit instead of an amend." Undoing could mean `git reset --hard {hash}`, but in many cases `--hard` would have unwanted effect and the default `--mixed` would be more suitable. But even in this case, it's not a full undo, since the index is not preserved: you don't end up in the same state as before the `commit --amend`.
  • arxanas 5y ago
    There is a design to address undoing changes to the index: https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless/issues/10 https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless/issues/10 It runs a `git checkout`, not a `git reset --hard`, so it will stop you if there are incompatible changes. Of course, if `git undo` can be made to lose your staged or unstaged work, then that's a bug. Fortunately, you can undo the result of any `git undo` with another `git undo` that goes one more step back in time.
  • spicybright 5y ago
    Why is it so hard to implement a git undo? You have a previous state, and a current state. Just roll it back.
• RichardCA 5y ago
  The purist will say: You are always free to write your own porcelain.