Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> +
> +* git-restore(1) and git-switch(1) have been introduced as a replacement for
> + git-checkout(1). As git-checkout(1) is quite established, and as the benefit
> + of switching to git-restore(1) and git-switch(1) is contended, all three
> + commands will stay.
"As a replacement" is probably a bit different from the truth [*],
but I suspect that the reason why they were introduced no longer has
much relevance. How about
The features git-checkout(1) offers are covered by the pair of
commands git-restore(1) and git-switch(1). Because the use of
git-checkout(1) is still widespread, and it is not expected that
this will change anytime soon.
or something (borrowing from your proposed log message)?
[Footnote]
* If we were to mention the history behind the introduction, we'd
end up saying: as an experiment, we introduced the pair of
commands that do different half of the original command to see if
they can replace the original.
The decision to keep the original would lead to implication that
this was a failed experiment, which makes people (unnecessarily)
wonder if the failed experiment should be removed. I am trying
to avoid such unnecessary implication here.
