Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation
- From
- Martin <git@mfriebe.de>
- Date
- Jul 10, 2021, 11:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1bd36aa2-ac90-f7d4-9d48-1aa39159b263@mfriebe.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <87im1ieaba.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
On 10/07/2021 12:24, Sergey Organov wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Martin <git@mfriebe.de> writes: >> Actually, "new" or "create" would make sense in "git branch". But in >> git switch, they actually raise the question "create what?" / "new >> what?". > > I believe that's because "git switch" tries to do too much. "git switch" > should rather switch between existing branches, and do nothing else. As > I said once in this discussion already: trouble writing good > documentation is often indication of some flaws in the design. > > Creating (a branch) is fundamentally different operation than switching > to (a branch), and that's why the former doesn't fit into "git switch". >
Right, yes. But creating a branch is often followed by switching to it.
So this is A shortcuts, that I actually think to be fine. It does add value, as it does speed up a common operation.
Of course you could have
git create-switch
or
git branch-switchI am not sure, that is really an improvement.
There is even discussion to add "-c" for "copy branch + switch" to git switch. Which I have no personal objection. Only find it regrettable that it means an incompatible change to -c. (Never mind that git switch is still "experimental". It has been so for a long time, for many people out there long enough to forget the "experimental")
And there is even discussion to add "-m" move/rename, to git switch.
Only that for the latter, most people would not even perceive a rename
as doing a switch/checkout (technically the branchname in HEAD is
updated, I guess).
So technically
git branch -m newname
should change the branchname, but NOT update HEAD (detach)?
(Not sure what it does / not tested)
If git branch actually updates HEAD in that case, then "git switch -m"
would be an identical copy, adding no value, therefore not required.