Re: Proposal: adding --soft and --mixed options to git checkout

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 27, 2023, 21:10 UTC
Message-ID: <644ae4b537ec2_7f4f2949@chronos.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <DB9PR09MB6506FD114211F3806C48954AB0649@DB9PR09MB6506.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>

i o wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > In my opinion it's pretty clear `--soft` and `--mixed` were terrible names and
> > I suggested in the past to rename them to `--no-stage` and `--stage` [1]. We
> > should not repeat those mistakes with `git checkout`.
> 
> No problem with renaming, but this might also be an oppurtunity to reconsider
> the meaning of the two options to incorporate `--keep-index`. Maybe
> `--no-stage` should mean 'switch HEAD and the working tree but leave the
> staging area' (i.e. the equivalent of `--keep-index`), and `--no-work` should
> mean 'switch HEAD and the staging area but leave the working tree' (i.e. the
> equivalent of `--mixed`). `--soft` could then be achieved by combining these
> options: `--no-stage --no-work`, but it could be a worthwhile convenience to
> add a separate option for that (just moving the HEAD), so maybe `--head` or
> something like that.

Of course, many options could be considered, but unfortunately the outcome will
be the same regardless of the consensus: no change will happen. As you can see
that's what happened in that previous thread, regardless of the overwhelming
consensus.

Show 5 quoted lines

> > In my mind the whole point of `git checkout` is to update the work-tree, if the
> > command is not going to do that, then I don't think it should be `git
> > checkout`.
> 
> I suppose something similar could also be said about `git reset` though?

I don't know. To me `git reset` is too vague. Resetting what? The "HEAD"? That to me has no meaning whatsoever, as "HEAD" is git-only semantic invention that roughly translates to "the current branch" (but not quite).

So with `git reset` we are "resetting the current branch"? That doesn't tell me much.

> Maybe this would support the general move away from those legacy commands
> towards the new set of commands, so putting these new options in `git switch`
> instead seems reasonable.

I would rather change the semantics of `git checkout` and `git reset` but that seems rather impossible.

So yeah, I would focus on what has a remote chance of actually get done.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras