From: Martin Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 11:05:54 GMT Subject: Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation 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: > Martin 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-switch I 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.