Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp

[Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > > From: Sam Vilain <samv@vilain.net>
> > > 
> > > For cross-command CLI changes to be effective, they need to be
> > > cohesively planned.  Add a planning document for this next set of
> > > changes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +  * 'git checkout branch' would, if there is a remote branch called
> > > +    'branch' on exactly one remote, do what
> > > +    'git checkout -b branch thatremote/branch' does now.  If it is
> > > +    ambiguous, it would be an error, forcing the explicit notation.
> > 
> > I can't do otherwise but disagree with this.  Currently, when a remote 
> > branch is checked out, the commit corresponding to that remote branch is 
> > put on a detached head which is IMHO completely sane and coherent. It 
> > even tells you how to create a local branch from there if that's what 
> > you wanted to do.  So if it is still too confusing at that point then 
> > more explanations are needed and not the removal of a perfectly fine 
> > feature. Please don't change that behavior.
> 
> +1 to Nico's NAK.
> 
> Although I was at the GitTogether I don't remember this change to
> checkout being discussed.  I must have been asleep reading email
> or something.  I am _NOT_ in favor of this change; I think the
> current behavior of "git checkout origin/master" is correct and as
> sane as we can make it.

Except he was talking about 'git checkout branch', not 'git checkout
origin/branch'. And I would be fine with 'git checkout branch' doing
what 'git checkout -b branch $remote/branch' does if $remote is unique
(i.e. there is no other 'branch' branch in any other remote) and the
'branch' branch doesn't already exist.

Mike