Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Oct 30, 2008, 14:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20081030145253.GK14786@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810301024300.13034@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > From: Sam Vilain <samv@vilain.net>
> > 
> > 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@vilain.net>
> [...]
> 
> > +  * '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.

-- 
Shawn.