On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:03 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I like the idea of splitting those commands up, in fact it is > > something I've been considering working on myself. I do think we > > should consider if we want to change the behaviour of those new > > commands in any way compared to 'git checkout', since we're starting > > with a clean slate. Better defaults? Hell yes! > > One thing in particular that I have in mind is something I'm currently > > working on, namely adding a --index flag to 'git checkout', which > > would make 'git checkout' work in non-overlay mode (for more > > discussion on that see also [*1*]. > > Ah, thanks for reminding me of that. That explains why I felt > uneasy to see "restore" in the proposed command name. About that name. I didn't want to start the command name with checkout to avoid completion conflict (the obvious choice was checkout-path, the function name behind it). And I didn't find any other good name, so I picked "restore" out of git-checkout.txt's one-line description. If we end up with a better command name, perhaps reword that line too. -- Duy
