Felipe Contreras wrote: > In my opinion it's pretty clear `--soft` and `--mixed` were terrible names and > I suggested in the past to rename them to `--no-stage` and `--stage` [1]. We > should not repeat those mistakes with `git checkout`. No problem with renaming, but this might also be an oppurtunity to reconsider the meaning of the two options to incorporate `--keep-index`. Maybe `--no-stage` should mean 'switch HEAD and the working tree but leave the staging area' (i.e. the equivalent of `--keep-index`), and `--no-work` should mean 'switch HEAD and the staging area but leave the working tree' (i.e. the equivalent of `--mixed`). `--soft` could then be achieved by combining these options: `--no-stage --no-work`, but it could be a worthwhile convenience to add a separate option for that (just moving the HEAD), so maybe `--head` or something like that. > In my mind the whole point of `git checkout` is to update the work-tree, if the > command is not going to do that, then I don't think it should be `git > checkout`. I suppose something similar could also be said about `git reset` though? Maybe this would support the general move away from those legacy commands towards the new set of commands, so putting these new options in `git switch` instead seems reasonable.
