Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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).

It would have been a stronger argument to favor --new if we had "git
branch --new <branchname>", but that is not the case.