list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Randall S. Becker" <>
To: "'Johannes Schindelin'" <>,
	"'Elijah Newren'" <>
Cc: "'Gábor Farkas'" <>,
	"'Git Mailing List'" <>
Subject: RE: git switch/restore, still experimental?
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 10:26:59 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <00af01d741ba$b916a330$2b43e990$> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On May 5, 2021 10:18 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>On Tue, 4 May 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:36 AM Gábor Farkas <>
>> >
>> > the "git switch" and "git restore" commands were released two years
>> > ago, but the manpage still says "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE
>> >
>> > i'd love to use them, but this warning gives me pause, perhaps i
>> > should wait until it stops being experimental, i worry that it might
>> > change in behavior unexpectedly and cause problems for me.
>> >
>> > considering that they were released two years ago, could the
>> > experimental-warning be removed now?
>> This probably makes sense.  The author of switch and restore isn't
>> involved in the git project anymore.  He decided to work on other
>> things, which was and is a big loss for us.  I think others (myself
>> included) didn't know all the things that might have been in Duy's
>> head that he wanted to verify were working well before marking this as
>> good, but these two commands have generally been very well received
>> and it has been a few years.  Personally, I'm not aware of anything
>> that we'd need or want to change with these commands.
>I think that part of the intention to mark this as experimental was to gather
>feedback about the commands. After all, the goal was to improve the user
>experience of Git (because `git checkout` does too many things, and its major
>accomplishment is to confuse literally every single new Git user).
>However, that hope never was fulfilled if I may say so, we simply did not attract
>the best-suited experts to this mailing list, not if what we set out was to improve
>Which leaves us with two hard choices regarding switch/restore, none of them
>really being comfortable:
>- we scrap switch/restore because their usability is not really all that
>  improved relative to `git checkout`.

Please do not do that. Switch/restore is much easier to understand for new users. The semantics are also more consistent with what others have done with git over the years anyway (EGit as an example). I have users who have transitioned because the commands make sense. They have not hit any missing bits in their workflows.

>- we leave switch/restore as-are (because by now, changing the options or
>  the design would be almost certainly disruptive to users who already
>  tried to adopt the new commands, I being one of those users).

I think we should work on the commands to cover between them (well... and reset) to functionally cover what checkout does. Leaving them as-is, I think is not a viable option. People do know these are experimental and not to use in scripts - we can hope anyway.

>I say that neither of them is a really splendid choice because the original goal is
>not only not accomplished, but I would say it is even harder now than it was
>when we accepted switch/restore into an official release, because of that
>experience with switch/restore. We simply do not have the right expertise on
>this list, and therefore anything we do will always have that "UX designed by an
>engineer" feel.

My thoughts anyway.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-05 14:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-04 10:32 Gábor Farkas
2021-05-04 19:54 ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-05  3:46 ` Elijah Newren
2021-05-05  4:01   ` Eric Sunshine
2021-05-05 11:09   ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-05 17:46     ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-05 19:26       ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-05 19:48     ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-06  1:39       ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-06 15:19         ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-06 10:05       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-06 14:29         ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-06  2:16     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-06 10:02       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-10 11:04         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-10 18:27           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-06 11:00       ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-06 15:26         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-06 21:55           ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-10 10:58             ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-11  7:15               ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-05 14:18   ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-05-05 14:26     ` Randall S. Becker [this message]
2021-05-06  1:15       ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-05 17:52     ` Felipe Contreras

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='00af01d741ba$b916a330$2b43e990$' \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='RE: git switch/restore, still experimental?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).