Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

[Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>]

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

> On Tue, May 04 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:36 AM Gábor Farkas <gabor.farkas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> the "git switch" and "git restore" commands were released two years
>>> ago, but the manpage still says "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE
>>> BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.".
>>>
>>> i'd love to use them, but this warning gives me pause, perhaps i
>>> should wait until it stops being experimental, i worry that it might
>>> change in behavior unexpectedly and cause problems for me.
>>>
>>> considering that they were released two years ago, could the
>>> experimental-warning be removed now?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> gabor
>>
>> This probably makes sense.  The author of switch and restore isn't
>> involved in the git project anymore.  He decided to work on other
>> things, which was and is a big loss for us.  I think others (myself
>> included) didn't know all the things that might have been in Duy's
>> head that he wanted to verify were working well before marking this as
>> good, but these two commands have generally been very well received
>> and it has been a few years.  Personally, I'm not aware of anything
>> that we'd need or want to change with these commands.
>
> I am.
>

[...]

> And:
>
>    # Moves a branch (or -M for --force)
>    git branch -m old new
>
> That last one we can't have either because "switch" squats on "-m" for
> "--merge", which I daresay is a much more obscure use-case not deserving
> of a short option than "rename and switch to".

Isn't --merge a different (and inferior) way to achieve what we already
have elsewhere with --autostash? Does it make sense to get rid of --merge
here in favor of --autostash?

Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov