From: "Randall S. Becker" <email@example.com> To: "'Johannes Schindelin'" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>, "'Elijah Newren'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "'Gábor Farkas'" <email@example.com>, "'Git Mailing List'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: git switch/restore, still experimental? Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 10:26:59 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> >wrote: >> > >> > the "git switch" and "git restore" commands were released two years >> > ago, but the manpage still says "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE >> > BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.". >> > >> > 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 >usability. > >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. -Randall
next prev parent 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --firstname.lastname@example.org' \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='RE: git switch/restore, still experimental?' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * 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: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git 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).