On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:29 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > v3 sees switch-branch go back to switch-branch (in v2 it was > > checkout-branch). checkout-files is also renamed restore-files (v1 was > > restore-paths). Hopefully we won't see another rename. > > I started reading through the patches. I also tried to apply them > locally, but they had conflicts or missing base file version on both > master and next. What version did you base it on? I think nd/checkout-dwim-fix because of a non-trivial conflict there (but I don't remember when I noticed it and rebased on that). Anyway you can get the whole series at https://gitlab.com/pclouds/git/tree/switch-branch-and-checkout-files It fixes some of your comments already, a couple of bug fixes here and there and in a good-enough shape that I start actually using it. > > - Two more fancy features (the "git checkout --index" being the > > default mode and the backup log for accidental overwrites) are of > > course still missing. But they are coming. > > > > I did not go replace "detached HEAD" with "unnamed branch" (or "no > > branch") everywhere because I think a unique term is still good to > > refer to this concept. Or maybe "no branch" is good enough. I dunno. > > I personally like "unnamed branch", but "no branch" would still be > better than "detached HEAD". Haven't really worked on killing the term "detached HEAD" yet. But I noticed the other day that git-branch reports * (HEAD detached from 703266f6e4) and I didn't know how to rephrase that. I guess "unnamed branch from 703266f6e4" is probably good enough but my old-timer brain screams no. -- Duy
