On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Sam Vilain wrote: > > > From: Sam Vilain <samv@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > For cross-command CLI changes to be effective, they need to be > > > cohesively planned. Add a planning document for this next set of > > > changes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sam Vilain <sam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > [...] > > > > > + * 'git checkout branch' would, if there is a remote branch called > > > + 'branch' on exactly one remote, do what > > > + 'git checkout -b branch thatremote/branch' does now. If it is > > > + ambiguous, it would be an error, forcing the explicit notation. > > > > I can't do otherwise but disagree with this. Currently, when a remote > > branch is checked out, the commit corresponding to that remote branch is > > put on a detached head which is IMHO completely sane and coherent. It > > even tells you how to create a local branch from there if that's what > > you wanted to do. So if it is still too confusing at that point then > > more explanations are needed and not the removal of a perfectly fine > > feature. Please don't change that behavior. > > +1 to Nico's NAK. > > Although I was at the GitTogether I don't remember this change to > checkout being discussed. I must have been asleep reading email > or something. I am _NOT_ in favor of this change; I think the > current behavior of "git checkout origin/master" is correct and as > sane as we can make it. Except he was talking about 'git checkout branch', not 'git checkout origin/branch'. And I would be fine with 'git checkout branch' doing what 'git checkout -b branch $remote/branch' does if $remote is unique (i.e. there is no other 'branch' branch in any other remote) and the 'branch' branch doesn't already exist. Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
