On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 18:39, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * I suspect that requiring an explicit "--detach" is deliberate, as
> they were trying to make "newbie friendlier" version of checkout.
Yes, I also believe this is deliberate.
I do not think however it makes it newbie-friendly.
As I said, on the contrary, I am having a hard time to get newbies to
start using switch precisely because it behaves differently from
checkout.
> * I am on the fence about the latter one. While I think it is a
> bug if "switch -" and "switch @{-1}" did not work exactly like
> "checkout @{-1}", combined with the previous point of requiring
> to be explicit when detaching HEAD, "switch -" that tries to go
> back to a detached state may be justifiable---it stops you in
> order to avoid accidental detaching of HEAD.
You are right, it may be justifiable. But unexpected behavior for both
newbies and experts may not be desirable.
> Personally, I think those who are familiar with and expert enough on
> Git and do not feel uneasy working on detached HEAD can and should
> just use "checkout" not "switch/restore", but that may be just me.
Isn't checkout supposed to become deprecated at some point?
Does it mean I can safely ignore the fact that switch exists and
continue advocating for checkout instead? I am missing the point for
the introduction of git-switch entirely then. And as you said you were
not among the primary advocates to add it, I guess we should wait for
someone else to reply about this?
And I still would love to have a checkout.autoDetach or
switch.autoDetach option :)
In any case, thank you already for this reply <3
Minato
