RE: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2019, #06; Thu, 25)

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On August 11, 2019 8:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > IMHO scripting around "action" commands like checkout is less bad than
> > around "output" commands like log. The general action of "switch to
> > this branch" is unlikely to be changed much over the years (or via
> > config), but the output of log, etc, is.
> >
> > There are no guarantees, of course, but I imagine that the tradeoff in
> > simplicity of using git-switch versus manually reimplementing it is
> > probably a good one for many scripts.
> 
> Another reason why scripting around "action" may be OK is that most of the
> time scriptors would want to (blindly) adopt improvements made to the
> underly ing command anyway.  If you scripted around "git checkout" before
> we introduced multiple worktree feature where a branch that is already
> active in another worktree is protected from getting checked out elsewhere,
> your script will automatically get that protection (and more importantly, the
> error message given as an explanation to the end users) for free.  Of course
> your script must be prepared to react correctly to a failure from "git
> checkout", but that goes without saying for any command you invoke in your
> script.

That would describe my subcommunity pretty accurately 😉

Thanks,
Randall