Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 Not to me. I assumed the "branch" is always a noun in "git branch", and the actual meaning of this command is: git branch [create|new] topic I.e., creation just being the default action taken on the branch. > git switch topic # here 'switch' is the verb Yep. > > 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 Yes, we can (and do) shove it into the "git switch", but "git new" would be better design. > > 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? Yes, it could be anything. The above is written in an assumption that default object for "git new" is branch. > > It's too ambigous. Yep. The explicit mode should have been: git new branch feature3 --at origin/rc-2 --track > >> 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. No, it's rather noun plus lacking subcommand, sometimes making it look like verb :) > >> 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. Yes, lacking (assumed) subcommands is yet another dimension of inconsistencies. I mean what I'm after is inconsistency of the first argument to "git". It's being the verb more often is where we currently are, at least when considering "primary" commands that "git help" outputs. I mean, consider: git branch new nice-feature vs git new branch nice-feature It should have been the latter, when in fact it's currently the [reduced] former. I.e., I'm in favor of universal: git <command> ... syntax to Git commands where <command> specifies an action. [Why things tend to drift to Lisp all the time, I wonder?] >From that POV, for the commands you mentioned, "git bisect" is probably fine, whereas "git worktree", and "git remote" should better be split to operations on them, e.g.: git new remote git new worktree Once that is regularized, we may as well consider allowing for inverse order of the first 2 arguments, by making git new remote git remote new the synonyms. It doesn't mean we need to rewrite everything. Having an end-goal specified though, we may design new features accordingly, and add commands in preferred syntax for existing features, so that they eventually obsolete the current status quo. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
