Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > IMHO scripting around "action" commands like checkout is less bad than > around "output" commands like log. The general action of "switch to this > branch" is unlikely to be changed much over the years (or via config), > but the output of log, etc, is. > > There are no guarantees, of course, but I imagine that the tradeoff in > simplicity of using git-switch versus manually reimplementing it is > probably a good one for many scripts. Another reason why scripting around "action" may be OK is that most of the time scriptors would want to (blindly) adopt improvements made to the underly ing command anyway. If you scripted around "git checkout" before we introduced multiple worktree feature where a branch that is already active in another worktree is protected from getting checked out elsewhere, your script will automatically get that protection (and more importantly, the error message given as an explanation to the end users) for free. Of course your script must be prepared to react correctly to a failure from "git checkout", but that goes without saying for any command you invoke in your script.
