Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I mean, I see why. You don't want a typo of "master" as "maaster" to
>>> create a new "maaster" branch, so really that's out. But it really
>>> should be:
>>>
>>>     # -n or -N for --new / --new --force (the latter just in case of a
>>>     # race, and just for consistency)
>>>     git switch -n doesnotexist
>>
>> I do not see why --new is better than --create; we did choose not to
>> reuse --branch from "checkout" and I remember that was a deliberate
>> decision (i.e. once split into "switch" and "restore", "switch"
>> becomes only about branches, so unlike in the context of "checkout",
>> in the context of "switch", the word "branch" adds a lot less value,
>> and certainly does not signal we are creating a branch and switching
>> to it).
>
> I don't think --new is better than --create when considered in
> isolation. I happen to think --create is better.
>
> What I'm arguing is that we should be aiming for some consistency in the
> command-set. In this case the relatively small change of
> s/--create/--new/ server so make the rest consistent. I.e. the branch
> and switch commands can mirror each other in the ways that matter for
> these common operations of create/copy/move.
>
>> It would have been a stronger argument to favor --new if we had "git
>> branch --new <branchname>", but that is not the case.
>
> The argument is that switch's experimental design squats on 2x other
> options, so changing -c to -n so we can make -c and -m do the same thing
> is better.