From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:13:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/21] checkout: split part of it to new command 'switch'
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BATpbAG8hDs6n2sfDCgY_XTJtU0MRxT+2FpHETqr+bCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7d3742d6-73e4-2750-6ecb-9edf761d96dd@gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:16 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +-f::
> > +--force::
> > +     Proceed even if the index or the working tree differs from
> > +     HEAD. Both the index and working tree are restored to match
> > +     the switching target. This is used to throw away local
> > +     changes.
>
> I'd always thought that --force meant "throw away my local changes if
> they conflict with the new branch" not "throw them away regardless"
> (which is better as it is deterministic). Maybe we can come up with a
> clearer name here --discard-changes? At the moment --force does not
> throw away conflicts properly (see the script below in my comments about
> --merge).

First victim of --discard-changes (or maybe I misread your comment),
it's too much to type even with completion and I'm so used to the
short and sweet "switch -[d]f".

Unless people object, I'm going to keep --force as an alias for
--discard-changes. -f could be extended later to cover more
--ignore-stuff when it makes sense.
-- 
Duy