On August 11, 2019 8:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. That would describe my subcommunity pretty accurately 😉 Thanks, Randall
