Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, May 04 2021, Elijah Newren wrote: > >> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:36 AM Gábor Farkas <gabor.farkas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> the "git switch" and "git restore" commands were released two years >>> ago, but the manpage still says "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE >>> BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.". >>> >>> i'd love to use them, but this warning gives me pause, perhaps i >>> should wait until it stops being experimental, i worry that it might >>> change in behavior unexpectedly and cause problems for me. >>> >>> considering that they were released two years ago, could the >>> experimental-warning be removed now? >>> >>> thanks, >>> gabor >> >> This probably makes sense. The author of switch and restore isn't >> involved in the git project anymore. He decided to work on other >> things, which was and is a big loss for us. I think others (myself >> included) didn't know all the things that might have been in Duy's >> head that he wanted to verify were working well before marking this as >> good, but these two commands have generally been very well received >> and it has been a few years. Personally, I'm not aware of anything >> that we'd need or want to change with these commands. > > I am. > [...] > And: > > # Moves a branch (or -M for --force) > git branch -m old new > > That last one we can't have either because "switch" squats on "-m" for > "--merge", which I daresay is a much more obscure use-case not deserving > of a short option than "rename and switch to". Isn't --merge a different (and inferior) way to achieve what we already have elsewhere with --autostash? Does it make sense to get rid of --merge here in favor of --autostash? Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
