Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, May 05 2021, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> 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? > > Probably, I haven't used the --merge option ever I think. Switching with > dirty worktrees isn't really how I work. > > But to the extent that I've ever tried / run into errors with that I'd > think that an option like --merge or --autostash is mostly a result of > us being overzealous about "is_dirty() && die()" checks. E.g. rebase (at > least a while ago, still) would refuse to rebase with a dirty tree, even > though the path in question had nothing to do with paths that would be > touched by the rebase. Unfortunately, this will never solve the problem entirely. Global autostash mode probably will, more chances if stash will save/restore exact state of everything when applied to the original base. > > I suspect that much of the need for these sorts of options would go away > with those checks being smarter, but it's separate from the "should we > squat on -m" discussion... It is not entirely separate. If --merge goes away, there will be no "squat on -m" anymore. Personally, I'd just turn on global autostash mode if it were available, and forget about both --merge and --autostash, for the better. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
