On 03/08/17 22:07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sahil Dua <sahildua2305@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Ah! I had skipped this reply from Ramsay earlier. >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Ramsay Jones >> ... >>>> I personally do not think "branch --copy master backup" while on >>>> "master" that switches to "backup" is a good UI, and I *will* say >>>> "I told you so" when users complain after we merge this down to >>>> 'master'. >>> >>> I wouldn't normally comment on an issue like this because I am >>> not very good at specifying, designing and evaluating UIs (so >>> who in their right mind would listen to me). ;-) >>> >>> FWIW, I suspect that I would not like using this interface either >>> and would, therefore, not use it. >> >> Does that mean you'd use it when "branch --copy feature-branch >> new-feature-branch" in the case when you would want to start working >> on a new branch (to modify or experiment with your current feature >> branch) on top of a branch keeping intact all the configuration and >> logs? > > I am not Ramsay, but your choice of branch names in your question, > i.e. "branch --copy feature new-feature", is what we do not agree > with in the first place, especially when we are *on* the "feature" > branch. > > We view "copy A B" as a way to make a back-up of A in B. I.e. We > want to keep working on A, but just in case we screw up badly, make > a backup copy of A in B, so that we can recover by a "branch --move > B A" later if needed. So touching B is the last thing we want to do > after "copy A B" operation---hence we do not want to switch to B. I couldn't have said this better. ;-) > That is not to say that you are wrong to wish to create a new > branch, check it out and start working on it with a single command. > We already have such a command all Git users are accustomed to, > which is "git checkout -b new-feature-branch feature-branch". Indeed, I wouldn't think of doing anything else. (That may be because I've been using git too long, of course). > That existing command does not copy things other than the commit > object name from "feature-branch", and I do not think it should by > default. But I do not think it is wrong to extend it with a new > option (think of it as "checkout --super-b" ;-) to copy other things > like branch descriptions etc. Hmm, I've never felt the lack of copying any attributes from the origin branch. So, I'm not convinced a "--super-b" is needed (but if other people feel the need, then why not). > So from that point of view, your new feature conceptually fits a lot > better to "git checkout", and does not belong to "git branch". That > is why I do not think "git branch --copy A B" while you are on A > should check out B after creating the copy. I agree (but lukewarm on the --super-b idea). :-D ATB, Ramsay Jones
