Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 6, 2021, 02:16 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq35v01ua3.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <877dkdwgfe.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 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).

It would have been a stronger argument to favor --new if we had "git branch --new <branchname>", but that is not the case.