On Thu, May 06 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I mean, I see why. You don't want a typo of "master" as "maaster" to >> create a new "maaster" branch, so really that's out. But it really >> should be: >> >> # -n or -N for --new / --new --force (the latter just in case of a >> # race, and just for consistency) >> git switch -n doesnotexist > > I do not see why --new is better than --create; we did choose not to > reuse --branch from "checkout" and I remember that was a deliberate > decision (i.e. once split into "switch" and "restore", "switch" > becomes only about branches, so unlike in the context of "checkout", > in the context of "switch", the word "branch" adds a lot less value, > and certainly does not signal we are creating a branch and switching > to it). I don't think --new is better than --create when considered in isolation. I happen to think --create is better. What I'm arguing is that we should be aiming for some consistency in the command-set. In this case the relatively small change of s/--create/--new/ server so make the rest consistent. I.e. the branch and switch commands can mirror each other in the ways that matter for these common operations of create/copy/move. > It would have been a stronger argument to favor --new if we had "git > branch --new <branchname>", but that is not the case. The argument is that switch's experimental design squats on 2x other options, so changing -c to -n so we can make -c and -m do the same thing is better.
