On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 6:13 PM Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Tao Klerks wrote: > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 12:01 AM Felipe Contreras > > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 10:01 PM Tao Klerks <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > If we are comfortable changing the behavior of branch checkout to be > > > > > safe-and-limiting like switch, then that should be almost as simple as > > > > > removing that condition. > > > > > > > > I've never heard a dissenting vote against this > > > > > > Here is my dissenting vote: I'm against this change. > > > > > > If I want to use a high-level command meant for novices, I use `git switch`. If > > > instead I simply want to switch to a different commit and I want git to shut up > > > about it, then I use `git checkout`. > > > > Thank you for your perspective on the relationship between these commands. > > > > I don't fully share this perspective, in two ways: > > - In my experience most novices don't see or know about "git switch" > > at all - the vast majority of the internet is still stuck on "git > > checkout", as are existing users. Google search result counts are of > > course a poor metric of anything, but compare 100k for "git switch" to > > 2.4M for "git checkout". > > Yes, but that's something for the Git community to fix. > > Why can't the git developers communicate effectively with the user base? Emm... I'm going to take that as a rhetorical question, since you've been around these parts for a lot longer than I have :) (I have opinions, but they are not pertinent to this thread, and I don't have meaningful solutions) > > > - As far as I can tell, "git switch" and "git restore" have exactly > > the same power and expressiveness (except specifically the lack of > > "git switch --force" support for bulldozing ongoing merges) - they are > > just as much "expert" tools as "git checkout"; the main way they > > differ is that they are clearer about what they're doing / what > > they're for. > > That is not true, you can't do `git switch master^0` because that would be > potentially confusing to new users, but you can do the same with `git > checkout`. Ah, I see your point - git switch requires you to be more verbose in this case, specifying an extra --detach. > > > > If there was a way of doing: > > > > > > git -c core.iknowwhatimdoing=true checkout $whatever > > > > > > Then I wouldn't oppose such change. > > > > I know I keep wavering back and forth on this, my apologies for my > > inconstancy: *I once again think adding support for "--force" (to > > checkout and switch) with ongoing operations makes sense.* > > > > This does not achieve exactly what you seem to be suggesting above, > > for two reasons: > > 1. It could not be implicit in config, but rather would need to be > > explicit in the command > > 2. The outcome of using --force is not exactly the same as "git > > checkout" without it (but that's a good thing) > > > > I would (and will) argue that not achieving exactly what you propose > > *is OK* because the behavior of "git checkout", without "--force", > > when there is a (merge, rebase, cherry-pick, am, bisect) operation in > > course, especially the way that behavior differs from when "--force" > > is specified, is *not useful* - even to expert users. > > OK. That may be the case. > > But it wouldn't be the first time some operation is considered not > useful, and then it turns out people did in fact use it. > > I would be much more confortable if there was a way to retain the > current behavior, but if we are 99.99% positive nobody is actually > relying on this behavior, we could chose to roll the die and see what > happens (hopefully nobody will shout). It sounds like you're distinguishing here between "options for experts" (which should be valuable to warrant influencing the long-term design) and "behavior that users and systems may have come to rely on". As I've argued here, I believe that the current behavior is not *useful*, and thus a "but the expert users" argument doesn't sway me at all... On the other hand, the "we shouldn't break existing (scripted/automated) uses" argument seems much more convincing, and more in line with what I was fishing for in my first question about a "breaking changes process". I haven't found any use cases that I could imagine anyone credibly automating against, but I did find some tests in the suite that were doing (in my opinion) "the wrong thing" and need to be modified: ``` # fails for some reason other than conflicts, eg commit hook git cherry-pick XXXXX # previously succeeded, removing cherry-pick state but leaving modified index; # will now newly fail with "you need to --abort first" git checkout main # cleans up modified index state git reset --hard ``` I can't imagine this pattern being used in real-life automation, but like anyone my imagination is limited. Making this behave correctly, after my planned changes, is very simple: replace "git checkout && git reset --hard" with "git checkout -f", or even just with "git cherry-pick --abort". But it is still a change in behavior that *could* cause breakage if anyone implemented a corner-case cleanup process in the same way those particular tests did. I believe this particular example is vanishingly unlikely, *because it doesn't deal with conflicts*. If the cherry-pick had left any conflicted files, then the checkout would have failed. The question, I understand, is whether there should be a "git -c core.suckycheckoutstatemanagement=true checkout" option *just in case*, so any affected automation users could set it, fix their affected automated processes, and then remove it, before we finally remove the "core.suckycheckoutstatemanagement" option in a subsequent release. Here is precisely where I don't know how to judge "breakage risk and value of being able to revert behavior without downgrading git" vs "complexity of implementation and communication". Obviously I would prefer not to do a bunch of valueless work implementing and supporting an option that no-one would ever use, and removing it a couple months later. I wonder, for example, whether there is any recommendation that automation users be willing and able to downgrade git temporarily, or not. That would be one way to make the risk of this kind of "corner-case breakage" more acceptable. > > But if that's the case, I think this is something that should be a > conscious decision that is extremely clear in the commit message. > I will do my best :)
