From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: i o <lvsil4@outlook.com>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: adding --soft and --mixed options to git checkout
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:10:13 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <644ae4b537ec2_7f4f2949@chronos.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB9PR09MB6506FD114211F3806C48954AB0649@DB9PR09MB6506.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
i o wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > In my opinion it's pretty clear `--soft` and `--mixed` were terrible names and
> > I suggested in the past to rename them to `--no-stage` and `--stage` [1]. We
> > should not repeat those mistakes with `git checkout`.
>
> No problem with renaming, but this might also be an oppurtunity to reconsider
> the meaning of the two options to incorporate `--keep-index`. Maybe
> `--no-stage` should mean 'switch HEAD and the working tree but leave the
> staging area' (i.e. the equivalent of `--keep-index`), and `--no-work` should
> mean 'switch HEAD and the staging area but leave the working tree' (i.e. the
> equivalent of `--mixed`). `--soft` could then be achieved by combining these
> options: `--no-stage --no-work`, but it could be a worthwhile convenience to
> add a separate option for that (just moving the HEAD), so maybe `--head` or
> something like that.
Of course, many options could be considered, but unfortunately the outcome will
be the same regardless of the consensus: no change will happen. As you can see
that's what happened in that previous thread, regardless of the overwhelming
consensus.
> > In my mind the whole point of `git checkout` is to update the work-tree, if the
> > command is not going to do that, then I don't think it should be `git
> > checkout`.
>
> I suppose something similar could also be said about `git reset` though?
I don't know. To me `git reset` is too vague. Resetting what? The "HEAD"? That
to me has no meaning whatsoever, as "HEAD" is git-only semantic invention that
roughly translates to "the current branch" (but not quite).
So with `git reset` we are "resetting the current branch"? That doesn't tell me
much.
> Maybe this would support the general move away from those legacy commands
> towards the new set of commands, so putting these new options in `git switch`
> instead seems reasonable.
I would rather change the semantics of `git checkout` and `git reset` but that
seems rather impossible.
So yeah, I would focus on what has a remote chance of actually get done.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-27 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-24 11:41 Proposal: adding --soft and --mixed options to git checkout i o
2023-04-24 21:32 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-04-25 9:28 ` i o
2023-04-27 21:10 ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=644ae4b537ec2_7f4f2949@chronos.notmuch \
--to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lvsil4@outlook.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).