RE: git switch/restore, still experimental?

From: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Date: May 5, 2021, 14:26 UTC
Message-ID: <00af01d741ba$b916a330$2b43e990$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2105051554250.50@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On May 5, 2021 10:18 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 38 quoted lines

>On Tue, 4 May 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:36 AM Gábor Farkas <gabor.farkas@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > the "git switch" and "git restore" commands were released two years
>> > ago, but the manpage still says "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE
>> > BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.".
>> >
>> > i'd love to use them, but this warning gives me pause, perhaps i
>> > should wait until it stops being experimental, i worry that it might
>> > change in behavior unexpectedly and cause problems for me.
>> >
>> > considering that they were released two years ago, could the
>> > experimental-warning be removed now?
>>
>> This probably makes sense.  The author of switch and restore isn't
>> involved in the git project anymore.  He decided to work on other
>> things, which was and is a big loss for us.  I think others (myself
>> included) didn't know all the things that might have been in Duy's
>> head that he wanted to verify were working well before marking this as
>> good, but these two commands have generally been very well received
>> and it has been a few years.  Personally, I'm not aware of anything
>> that we'd need or want to change with these commands.
>
>I think that part of the intention to mark this as experimental was to gather
>feedback about the commands. After all, the goal was to improve the user
>experience of Git (because `git checkout` does too many things, and its major
>accomplishment is to confuse literally every single new Git user).
>
>However, that hope never was fulfilled if I may say so, we simply did not attract
>the best-suited experts to this mailing list, not if what we set out was to improve
>usability.
>
>Which leaves us with two hard choices regarding switch/restore, none of them
>really being comfortable:
>
>- we scrap switch/restore because their usability is not really all that
>  improved relative to `git checkout`.

Please do not do that. Switch/restore is much easier to understand for new users. The semantics are also more consistent with what others have done with git over the years anyway (EGit as an example). I have users who have transitioned because the commands make sense. They have not hit any missing bits in their workflows.

>- we leave switch/restore as-are (because by now, changing the options or
>  the design would be almost certainly disruptive to users who already
>  tried to adopt the new commands, I being one of those users).

I think we should work on the commands to cover between them (well... and reset) to functionally cover what checkout does. Leaving them as-is, I think is not a viable option. People do know these are experimental and not to use in scripts - we can hope anyway.

Show 6 quoted lines

>I say that neither of them is a really splendid choice because the original goal is
>not only not accomplished, but I would say it is even harder now than it was
>when we accepted switch/restore into an official release, because of that
>experience with switch/restore. We simply do not have the right expertise on
>this list, and therefore anything we do will always have that "UX designed by an
>engineer" feel.

My thoughts anyway.

-Randall