From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D36D0770F3 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 17:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717175113; cv=none; b=RoQb+iw0SSrLOdjOm+cor43DTVIFJ264NZWx0DtAA4bJSRDPEp/45L9i9v+Om9nVq9DWhFiCWc9e6gwswgfx3qcJYbblG7IKukpq++fqbeZ6SJnO2NjrNDRZ2hJycY38dG0NWcTzmRP1lddmklrczU0l1ZBQi8LrxPP9JInVp/k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717175113; c=relaxed/simple; bh=a79FS0Y1LbgaIp99+KMzznFI1udkX26mm35xqNS8omE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IHQeuyWBtDb0k7ZrIdZ4EowI7ZkZqpw2xuA0aAtTiUpqeAsx/umrnKnPToG9/yVWt4cgcklKLorOVf814mToBgS5HrB+d3fnDpqeuqHue9OnCxOCam7h9eld5B/p/tF7D2aoTAb1bx+LEhcjb8yrhnBZYQEEELPsqn4Jai7QQQ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=TI0YzcU1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="TI0YzcU1" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CB01BD24; Fri, 31 May 2024 13:05:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=a79FS0Y1LbgaIp99+KMzznFI1udkX26mm35xqN S8omE=; b=TI0YzcU1eM9GqCXDifbQKcakz0UGtifD8Of/5DBAEFFbr1K4LwIzko g2/5DsxhoR6Of3/MfGAQsID59VA8DBAFiAqWezIg51bh6fX1wb3c0mOvMCRJNVM8 78rrIm8ttbjCZa9J9v4J/Z/Z5Rki0tLJU9Zgrs05yMCFXC+V4CrXk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD281BD23; Fri, 31 May 2024 13:05:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.173.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7CAE1BD22; Fri, 31 May 2024 13:05:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , Phillip Wood , Justin Tobler , Dragan Simic , Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] BreakingChanges: document that we do not plan to deprecate git-checkout In-Reply-To: <40594bda5c8050c2a863df8c9f6f92cd98ea8484.1717141598.git.ps@pks.im> (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Fri, 31 May 2024 09:56:46 +0200") References: <40594bda5c8050c2a863df8c9f6f92cd98ea8484.1717141598.git.ps@pks.im> Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:05:08 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EFEEF4E8-1F6F-11EF-A397-B84BEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: > The git-checkout(1) command is seen by many as hard to understand > because it connects two somewhat unrelated features: switching between > branches and restoring worktree files from arbitrary revisions. In 2019, > we thus implemented two new commands git-switch(1) and git-restore(1) to > split out these separate concerns into standalone functions. > > This "replacement" of git-checkout(1) has repeatedly triggered concerns > for our userbase that git-checkout(1) will eventually go away. This is > not the case though: the use of that command is still widespread, and it > is not expected that this will change anytime soon. > > Document that neither of these commands will not go away anytime soon. "neither" -> "none"? It is accepted to use neither to pick among three things these days, but the latter is clearer.