On Sun, Dec 12 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> It is unclear if you mean "dev1" exactly point at the commit tagged
>>> as v1.1, or you want the branch "dev1" that is a descedanant of
>>> v1.1. Without telling that to the reader, the above explanation is
>>> useless.
>>>
>>
>> I meant the former.
>>
>>> And whether you meant the former or the latter, neither use case does
>>> not make much sense.
>>> ...
>>> So, "--to-branch v1.1" that finds and checks out a branch whose tip
>>> exactly points at v1.1 would be pretty useless.
>> ...
>> "git branch --contains v1.1" can find all branches whose history contains the
>> commit tagged as v1.1. So what if "git checkout --contains v1.1"?
>
> I already said, whether you meant "the only branch that points
> exactly at" or "the only branch that contains", the feature does not
> make sense. Forcing users to keep only a single branch that either
> points at a given tag is simply impossible and also useless. Once
> the branch gains even a single commit, it will no loger be pointing
> at the tag, so "let's prepare a branch pointing at v1.1 just in case
> when I want to start working from there" would not be a good
> workflow to begin with. Forcing users to keep only a single branch
> that contains a given tag would encourage even a worse workflow to
> throw in unrelated things, whose only commonality is that they all
> want to fork from a single tag, into a single branch.
>
> IOW, there is nothing we want to add to "git checkout/switch" for
> this topic. "git checkout --contains $tag" smells like a solution
> looking for a problem.
I don't see how it's fundimentally different than the DWIM logic of
taking "<name>" and seeing that there's only one "refs/heads/<name>",
and giving up in other cases where we get ambiguous reference names that
we can't resolve.
I.e. I think this is probably useful for some, it's a common workflow to
have a 1=1 relationship like this, and if it's 1=many we can just handle
it as we do with ambiguous ref, or ambiguous short OIDs for that matter.
But as I noted upthread I really don't see this making sense as a
per-command thing, as opposed to some extension of the "peel"
syntax. I.e. we should (or at least expose it as such to the user)
interpret that sort of argument/newx syntax before "git checkout" et al
get to it, so from a UX perspective you could feed a ^{oid2ref} (or
whatever it would be called) to rev-parse, checkout etc. etc.
