Sergey Organov wrote: > Martin <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 10/07/2021 12:24, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Martin <git@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Actually, "new" or "create" would make sense in "git branch". But in > >>> git switch, they actually raise the question "create what?" / "new > >>> what?". > >> I believe that's because "git switch" tries to do too much. "git switch" > >> should rather switch between existing branches, and do nothing else. As > >> I said once in this discussion already: trouble writing good > >> documentation is often indication of some flaws in the design. > >> Creating (a branch) is fundamentally different operation than switching > >> to (a branch), and that's why the former doesn't fit into "git switch". > >> > > > > Right, yes. But creating a branch is often followed by switching to it. > > Yep, but here the creation is the primary operation, not switching, so > putting this into "git switch" looks like design flaw. These 2 actions > are fine to co-exist in "git branch" = "whatever you want to do to > branches", but not in "git switch" == "wherever you want to switch". I don't see the logic in here. git branch topic # here 'branch' is the verb git switch topic # here 'switch' is the verb Now, if you want to do both at the same time the logical options are: git branch --switch topic # here '--switch' is an adverb git switch --new topic # here '--new' is an adverb The former reads like gibberish to me: "git, branch off in a 'switch' way". The latter makes perfect sense: "git, switch to a branch in a 'new' way". > Logically, there could be something like "git new" that does create a > branch and then switches there by default, or something like that, say: > > git new feature3 --at origin/rc-2 --track Here the the verb is clear, but not the direct object, a "new" what? Couldn't it be a tag? Or a commit? Or a remote? Or a worktree? Or a bisect? Or a submodule? It's too ambigous. > And while we are at it, do you guys notice how 2 concepts are mixed in > Git commands? I mean, the interface seems to mix object-oriented and > action-oriented commands, most of commands being action-oriented with > only a few unfortunate exceptions. > > Let me try a short survey: > > 1. In > > git branch ... > > is "branch" a noun or a verb? Both. > 2. In > > git merge ... > > is "merge" a noun or a verb? Verb. > To me, while the latter is obvious, it's verb and specifies the action > to be performed, the former looks more like "whatever you want to do > with branches", and thus the "branch" is a noun there and the command > thus is object-oriented. I agree, and I did have indeed noticed the inconsistency. But there's another category of commands that receive subcommands, like: git remote $subcommand git worktree $subcommand git bisect $subcommand In my opinion `git branch` fits more these subcommand commands, and it was a mistake to make the subcommands options, it should be: git branch list git branch new git branch set-upstream git branch move ... Now the verb is crystal-clear. -- Felipe Contreras
