Git's autocorrect, specifically the help.autocorrect setting, can be frustratingly quick, correcting commands before users finish typing. This blog post explores the speed of this feature, demonstrating that even with deliberately slow, hunt-and-peck typing, Git often corrects commands before a human could realistically finish inputting them. The author argues that this aggressive correction behavior disrupts workflow and can lead to unintended actions, especially for complex or unfamiliar commands. They propose increasing the default autocorrection delay from 50ms to a more human-friendly value, suggesting 200ms as a reasonable starting point to allow users more time to complete their input. This would improve the user experience by striking a better balance between helpful correction and premature interruption.
The blog post "Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?" explores the speed and efficiency of Git's command correction feature, specifically the help.autocorrect configuration option. The author draws a humorous analogy to the rapid pace of Formula One racing, suggesting that even the lightning-fast reflexes of F1 drivers wouldn't be sufficient to react to Git's near-instantaneous command correction.
The post begins by explaining the basic functionality of Git's autocorrect. When a user mistypes a Git command, if help.autocorrect is enabled, Git will attempt to correct the command and execute the corrected version after a very brief delay. This delay is configurable, with the default value being 100 milliseconds (0.1 seconds). The author notes that this is an incredibly short timeframe, especially when considered in the context of human reaction time.
To illustrate this point, the author introduces the concept of human reaction time, citing average times for visual and auditory stimuli. They highlight that even under ideal circumstances, human reaction times are significantly longer than Git's default autocorrection delay. The blog post then delves into the world of Formula One, describing the immense speeds and split-second decisions involved in this sport. The author argues that even highly trained F1 drivers, renowned for their exceptional reflexes, would likely be unable to consciously register, let alone interrupt, Git's autocorrection process within the default timeframe.
The post continues by examining the different levels of the help.autocorrect setting. A value of 0 bypasses the delay altogether, instantly correcting and executing the command. A value of 1 prompts the user for confirmation before proceeding with the correction. Values greater than 1 specify the delay in tenths of a second. The author further explains that the configuration can be set globally, locally within a repository, or even for individual commands.
Finally, the blog post concludes with a lighthearted suggestion: if a user finds the default autocorrection speed too overwhelming, they can increase the delay or disable the feature entirely. The overall tone of the post is playful and engaging, using the F1 analogy to emphasize the remarkable speed of Git's autocorrection mechanism while simultaneously providing practical information about its configuration and usage.
Summary of Comments ( 209 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42760620
HN commenters largely discussed the annoyance of Git's aggressive autocorrect, particularly
git pushbecominggit pull, leading to unintended overwrites of local changes. Some suggested the speed of the correction is disorienting, making it hard to interrupt, even for experienced users. Several proposed solutions were mentioned, including increasing the correction delay, disabling autocorrect for certain commands, or using aliases entirely. The behavior ofgit helpwas also brought up, with some arguing its prompt should be less aggressive as typos are common when searching documentation. A few questioned the blog post's F1 analogy, finding it weak, and others pointed out alternative shell configurations likezshandfishwhich offer improved autocorrection experiences. There was also a thread discussing the implementation of the autocorrection feature itself, suggesting improvements based on Levenshtein distance and context.The Hacker News post "Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?" with ID 42760620 has sparked a discussion with several interesting comments.
Many commenters agree with the premise of the article, pointing out the frustration of Git's aggressive autocorrect, especially when typos are made early in a command. One commenter describes the experience as "infuriating" and mentions losing their train of thought after being corrected to a completely different command. Another user humorously suggests the autocorrect is so fast it's like it's predicting what they meant to type before they even know themselves.
Several users discuss the
help.autocorrectsetting, with some surprised they weren't already aware of it. The different levels of autocorrect are explained and debated, with some preferring 'prompt' for more control and others advocating for 'always' for maximum efficiency. The discussion also touches upon the relatedgit config --global help.typersetting, which some consider to be even more powerful in reducing typing errors by completing commands and arguments after hitting the Tab key.The conversation also delves into the nuances of these settings, with users pointing out that while
help.autocorrecthandles command typos, it doesn't address typos in branch names or other arguments. One commenter suggests using a fuzzy finder like fzf to help with this, while another mentions using a shell alias to add--no-autocorrectto commonly mistyped commands.Some commenters offer alternative solutions, like using a more visually rich terminal or a Git GUI client, arguing that these provide a clearer overview and reduce the reliance on typing long commands.
One user suggests that the problem lies not with Git's autocorrect, but with the design of the command-line interface itself, proposing that a more structured and discoverable interface would mitigate the need for memorizing complex commands and thus reduce the likelihood of typos.
Finally, there's a thread discussing the cognitive impact of interruptions caused by the autocorrect. One commenter argues that these interruptions disrupt flow state and decrease productivity, while another suggests that the frustration stems from the feeling of lack of control and the perception that the tool is working against them.