On 02/06/2012 06:30 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Sure, that's one way to do it. But I don't see any point in not allowing
>> "git checkout -b" to be another way of doing it. Is there some other use
>> case for "git checkout -b" from an unborn branch? Or is there some
>> harmful outcome that can come from doing so that we need to be
>> protecting against? Am I missing something?
>
> Mostly because it is wrong at the conceptual level to do so.
>
> git checkout -b foo
>
> is a short-hand for
>
> git checkout -b foo HEAD
>
> which is a short-hand for
>
> git branch foo HEAD &&
> git checkout foo
>
> But the last one has no chance of working if you think about it, because
> "git branch foo $start" is a way to start a branch at $start and you need
> to have something to point at with refs/heads/foo.
>
> So we are breaking the equivalence between these three only when HEAD
> points at an unborn branch.
You are thinking too much like a developer and not like a user. For a user,
git checkout -b foo
is a short-hand for
"create and check out a branch at my current state"
and the interpretation of what that means when I am on an unborn branch
seems unambiguous.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html