On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:17 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23 2021, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > I'm not sure I follow. In git-switch, --orphan does not imply -c even > > though --orphan also creates a new branch (thus seems to work similar > > to -c); it is nevertheless mutually-exclusive with -c and -C. The same > > goes for --orphan in git-branch. > > I think we're on the same page with regards to what I meant. I.e. I > don't see how it makes sense to conflate the type of branch we want > (orphan or not orphan) with whether we want to clobber that branch or > not (switch -c or -C, or worktree -b or -B) I see where you're coming from in viewing --orphan as a modifier of branch creation rather than as a branch-creation option itself. However, as far as UI is concerned, that ship sailed a long time ago, I suppose. > > As far as combining --orphan and -C (or -c), I'm not sure how we would > > arrange that using the existing parse_options() mechanism. It seems > > too magical and has potential for weird corner cases. > > Isn't it just having --orphan be an OPTION_STRING with > PARSE_OPT_LASTARG_DEFAULT. I.e. to support: > > git switch -b branch --orphan > git switch -B branch --orphan > git switch --orphan branch > > And: > > git worktree add -b branch --orphan > git worktree add -B branch --orphan > > I didn't test it, just skimmed the code. I haven't dived into this stuff in a long time, but I'm having trouble convincing myself that it would work out as intended. If I'm reading PARSE_OPT_LASTARG_DEFAULT correctly, `git switch -b <branch> --orphan` would not be the same as `git switch --orphan -b <branch>`, and I don't think it would work at all for git-worktree-add which has additional <path> and <commitish> arguments (i.e. `git worktree add -b <branch> --orphan <path> [<commitish>]`). Anyhow, as I responded elsewhere to Junio, my present leaning is toward -b, -B, --orphan all being mutually-exclusive branch-creation options, each taking a <branch> argument -- just like they are in git-checkout and git-switch (-c/-C, in this case) -- and allowing --force to overwrite an existing branch (in which case, -B can be viewed as shorthand for `--force -b`). > > Since git-worktree doesn't yet support --orphan, we certainly have > > more leeway and could go with your proposal of having --orphan be > > boolean and always requiring it to be used in conjunction with -b/-B. > > However, I'm quite hesitant to take that approach since it breaks with > > existing precedent in git-branch and git-switch, in which case > > --orphan takes its own argument (<branch>) and is mutually-exclusive > > with -b/-B/-c/-C. > > In git-branch? Isn't it only git [checkout|switch] that takes --orphan? Um, yes, I meant git-checkout everywhere I wrote git-branch. Sorry for the confusion. > I think not having a -B or -C equivalent at all would be preferrable to > having a --force special-case just to work around the lack of it for > --orphan. I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this statement.
