9/20/2023 0 Comments Stash changes github desktopI think it's worth nothing that most of the positive feedback (that I can find here on GitHub) was before this feature shipped. I really hope enough people chime in to change things, but seeing some flavor of this reported and closed across many issues now.I'm not sure what the bar for feedback is. It's troubling to have to go this route for an otherwise great app, especially when the code cost is apparently so low. Anything to avoid a fork for this behavior many users are now complaining about. Not the people, just the situation.Īfter digging in and seeing how feature flags work, I'd even take an environmental variable to set for enableStashing. I sincerely hope the need to fork goes away - this open source interaction saddens me more than any other has in all my years doing it. If this is bugging you enough to do the same and build and run yourself, then hopefully that pointer saves some time. I've created a fork with only that flag flipped to false and am now using that with a lot less frustration. Since others expressed interest in how to disable this, luckily at this point in time there's still a feature flag in the codebase. I'll definitely update this issue if we do decide to close it out or if we decide to prioritize solving the problem that y'all are experiencing. Your concerns are absolutely valid, and we're still evaluating this based on the feedback we receive and data - that's why this issue remains open and why I'm particularly eager to see more folks weigh in (so thank you to those of you who have done so! ✨). However, we have to look at product decisions in terms of how they provide value for (or pain for) our users overall. We totally understand that for the folks who have weighed in on this thread, this new flow represents significant pain for you, and that sucks. Our general philosophy is that there should be consistent expectations for the product from users, and therefore we very rarely offer toggles to disable a particular feature, usually when it's blocking a typical and common workflow (for example, we added the ability to cancel out of the merge conflicts modal so folks who prefer a more manual conflict resolution path could still do that). For essentially every feature we release, there are a few people who ask for a toggle to disable it. We understand that not everyone or every team has the same workflows, and we try to balance discoverability for the majority with hopefully not being too obtrusive to others. Thanks y'all for continuing to provide feedback. If this ever changes, please update this issue and I'll be the first to help test it. But that's what a tool is supposed to do, save human time. I very much don't like needing to resort to a fork to save time. I'd love to test a beta or anything as soon as an option is added whenever it is. Please consider this for a future release. It will also cost me far less time fixing misclicks on the prompt has. It's just a math equation: a fork will cost me less time than this prompt has. It's just not a good situation.Īs someone who maintains a lot of open source, I don't say this lightly, but: this issue is annoying enough that I'm just going to fork the project and comment out the prompts. It introduces thought into the flow that isn't needed (for me) and I'm honestly better off at the command line without the GUI when changing branches. I change branches dozens of times a day and this offers a delay and a chance for failure 10-20 times a day. cc for the update here - though not good news I really do appreciate having the info to make decisions.įor what it's worth, when it affects people it really affects them. Please allow us to disable this prompt - can we add a preference here? It only offers me opportunities to fail and cause more work. I don't want GitHub Desktop to "help" 's an annoyance instead. If I need to change to master first for some reason, it's 2 prompts. This was painless before, but now results in a prompt each time. We don't know what the problem is ahead of time. If we find a problem, we solve the problem, then commit that work in a branch for PR review. To not be annoyed by this, it forces a workflow on the user of defining their branch before making their changes. Create a new branch for the changes to go in.Be in a branch (maybe master, maybe some random branch from the last change).Most often, this is to a new branch, off of master - so that our migration work continually flows, rather than a big bang at the end. In a big port we're doing, very often we're making changes in whatever branch we're in - the delta matters but the parent doesn't, and we'll flip to master or another branch to actually commit those changes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |