RE: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2019, #06; Thu, 25)
- From
Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
- Date
- Aug 12, 2019, 13:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <003201d55113$6d4c8ee0$47e5aca0$@nexbridge.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqwofjb4k4.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On August 11, 2019 8:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > IMHO scripting around "action" commands like checkout is less bad than > > around "output" commands like log. The general action of "switch to > > this branch" is unlikely to be changed much over the years (or via > > config), but the output of log, etc, is. > > > > There are no guarantees, of course, but I imagine that the tradeoff in > > simplicity of using git-switch versus manually reimplementing it is > > probably a good one for many scripts. > > Another reason why scripting around "action" may be OK is that most of the > time scriptors would want to (blindly) adopt improvements made to the > underly ing command anyway. If you scripted around "git checkout" before > we introduced multiple worktree feature where a branch that is already > active in another worktree is protected from getting checked out elsewhere, > your script will automatically get that protection (and more importantly, the > error message given as an explanation to the end users) for free. Of course > your script must be prepared to react correctly to a failure from "git > checkout", but that goes without saying for any command you invoke in your > script.
That would describe my subcommunity pretty accurately π
Thanks, Randall