Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Which leaves us with two hard choices regarding switch/restore, none of > them really being comfortable: > > - we scrap switch/restore because their usability is not really all that > improved relative to `git checkout`. > > - we leave switch/restore as-are (because by now, changing the options or > the design would be almost certainly disruptive to users who already > tried to adopt the new commands, I being one of those users). There's another option: - we revamp completely switch/restore (because any users relying on them by now were warned they shouldn't assume these commands to stay as they are). > I say that neither of them is a really splendid choice because the > original goal is not only not accomplished, but I would say it is even > harder now than it was when we accepted switch/restore into an official > release, because of that experience with switch/restore. We simply do not > have the right expertise on this list, and therefore anything we do will > always have that "UX designed by an engineer" feel. I disagree. Engineers can create a good UI, especially after trying for a while failed attempts. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
