From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Cc: "'Johannes Schindelin'" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
"'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: Thu, 06 May 2021 10:15:57 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqzgx81x2q.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00af01d741ba$b916a330$2b43e990$@nexbridge.com> (Randall S. Becker's message of "Wed, 5 May 2021 10:26:59 -0400")
"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
>>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.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you that the third-choice to improve
switch/restore before we can confidently say they are no longer
"experimental" would be much nicer than giving up on them too early.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-06 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-04 10:32 git switch/restore, still experimental? 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
2021-05-06 1:15 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqzgx81x2q.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=gabor.farkas@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=rsbecker@nexbridge.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).