"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>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`. > > Please do not do that. Switch/restore is much easier to understand > for new users. The semantics are also more consistent with what > others have done with git over the years anyway (EGit as an > example). I have users who have transitioned because the commands > make sense. They have not hit any missing bits in their workflows. > >>- 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). > > I think we should work on the commands to cover between them > (well... and reset) to functionally cover what checkout > does. Leaving them as-is, I think is not a viable option. People > do know these are experimental and not to use in scripts - we can > hope anyway. Yeah, I tend to agree with you that the third-choice to improve switch/restore before we can confidently say they are no longer "experimental" would be much nicer than giving up on them too early.
