git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
	"Gábor Farkas" <gabor.farkas@gmail.com>,
	"Git Mailing List" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:04:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgx2u9pu.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pmy4uqhz.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>


On Thu, May 06 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> On Thu, May 06 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

*Poke*

>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I mean, I see why. You don't want a typo of "master" as "maaster" to
>>> create a new "maaster" branch, so really that's out. But it really
>>> should be:
>>>
>>>     # -n or -N for --new / --new --force (the latter just in case of a
>>>     # race, and just for consistency)
>>>     git switch -n doesnotexist
>>
>> I do not see why --new is better than --create; we did choose not to
>> reuse --branch from "checkout" and I remember that was a deliberate
>> decision (i.e. once split into "switch" and "restore", "switch"
>> becomes only about branches, so unlike in the context of "checkout",
>> in the context of "switch", the word "branch" adds a lot less value,
>> and certainly does not signal we are creating a branch and switching
>> to it).
>
> I don't think --new is better than --create when considered in
> isolation. I happen to think --create is better.
>
> What I'm arguing is that we should be aiming for some consistency in the
> command-set. In this case the relatively small change of
> s/--create/--new/ server so make the rest consistent. I.e. the branch
> and switch commands can mirror each other in the ways that matter for
> these common operations of create/copy/move.
>
>> It would have been a stronger argument to favor --new if we had "git
>> branch --new <branchname>", but that is not the case.
>
> The argument is that switch's experimental design squats on 2x other
> options, so changing -c to -n so we can make -c and -m do the same thing
> is better.

Whatever the merit of the argument I'm putting forward here, it would be
useful to get some idea of whether you'd be categorically opposed to
changing the interface of switch/restore in breaking ways even though
they've been marked as "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL".

Of course any series to implement what I suggested in
<877dkdwgfe.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> would need to stand on its own
merits.

I'm not planning on working on that since I expect the response will be
at best "neat, but that ship has sailed", but if that's not the case...

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-10 11:51 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 [this message]
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
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 \
    --in-reply-to=87zgx2u9pu.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com \
    --to=avarab@gmail.com \
    --cc=gabor.farkas@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=newren@gmail.com \
    --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).