Re: [PATCH 2/2] builtin: unmark git-switch and git-restore as experimental

> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In 4e43b7ff (Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental,
> > 2019-04-25), the newly introduced git-switch(1) and git-restore(1)
> > commands were marked as experimental. This was done to provide time to
> > make breaking changes to the interface. It has now been over six years
> > since these commands were implemented and there has not been much change
> > that would warrant these commands remaining experimental.
> 
> Remove "and there has not been ..." and everything after this point,
> and replace it with something like
> 
>     but there hasn't been much change.  In the meantime, these
>     commands being experimental has become an old news.  People have
>     become so grown to rely on how these commands work, it is no
>     longer feasible for us to now make breaking changes to them.
> 
>     Let's mark them no longer experimental.
> 
> or something like that, perhaps.

> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-restore.adoc b/Documentation/git-restore.adoc
> > index 96de9bb5ed7..903e8c4618a 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-restore.adoc
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-restore.adoc
> > @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ otherwise from the index. Use `--source` to restore from a different commit.
> >  See "Reset, restore and revert" in linkgit:git[1] for the differences
> >  between the three commands.
> >  
> > -THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.
> > -
> >  OPTIONS
> >  -------
> >  `-s <tree>`::
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-switch.adoc b/Documentation/git-switch.adoc
> > index 7b24450f841..1d46010292d 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-switch.adoc
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-switch.adoc
> > @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ Switching branches does not require a clean index and working tree
> >  however if the operation leads to loss of local changes, unless told
> >  otherwise with `--discard-changes` or `--merge`.
> >  
> > -THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.
> > -
> >  OPTIONS
> >  -------
> >  _<branch>_::
> 
> I think these two changes are OK.  I personally do not think [1/2]
> is a great idea.  At least I am not convinced myself not yet.
> 
> And if [1/2] were a good idea, then we probably should apply it, and
> then wait for another 5 years before proceeding to this [2/2] patch.