On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:58 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:25 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:47 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:16 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 08/03/2019 09:57, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > > > > > "git checkout" doing too many things is a source of confusion for many > > > > > users (and it even bites old timers sometimes). To remedy that, the > > > > > command will be split into two new ones: switch and > > > > > something-to-checkout-paths. > > > > > > > > I think this is a good idea, thanks for working on it. I wonder if it > > > > would be a good idea to have the new command refuse to checkout a new > > > > branch if there is a cherry-pick/revert/merge/rebase in progress (with > > > > an option to override the check) as switching branches in the middle of > > > > one of those is likely to be confusing to users (if I do it it is > > > > normally because I've forgotten that I've not run 'git whatever > > > > --continue'). > > > > > > Interesting. I think this would be a good default if we have an escape > > > hatch (which could even come later). I often wander off to some other > > > branch and go back. But then half the time I end up forgetting I'm in > > > a middle of something and just "git rebase --quit" :P > > > > > > Of course with git-stash (*) and git-worktree, I guess there's little > > > reason to just switch away from a something-in-progress worktree. I'll > > > try to implement this in the next round, unless someone objects. > > > > No objection here; I like this idea. > > One last thing. What about --detach? Should it have the same > protection or should we let the user doing --detach (experiments) take > the responsibity to not screw themselves up? My intuition here is a bit weaker; it would be nice to hear others' opinions. My best guess thinking it over a bit is that while someone doing --detach is more likely to know what they are doing than other users of the 'switch' command, they may also be the kind of person who is more likely to run interactive rebases and thus had more opportunities to forget that they are still in the middle of one. I think I've been guilty of that a few times. So, while this would be less critical for this case, I lean towards saying that it may still be helpful anyway, and if nothing else the consistency of handling all switching cases the same seems beneficial.
