From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.157]) (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 677C8244679 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753215736; cv=none; b=XIR4eGCu+MPyIejP4N87gN+QrK0G81niioE6q1jpB3hjsGo4FYEocdUqrHTogkFrHrjn0OfwM3ax9E1p+R9LOLaXSouePKZ+BczdqHSE+vWOtK4Xk3sa+AVn2dJpm6YFgp4puEBLRof0RcORwgUy6gt3PoEsYdVrFl6WdaSIPpI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753215736; c=relaxed/simple; bh=d1XLBXnDQ3uojcWsBb8MWYNpDFxEmQx2zP38K73Btxc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GrAD3WfU2JM9QP4Lj/iNriyFqJrWfJyz94j6o/ix1a3BU/sTS76h5Ove0rgMN6OHqovRwO3GB53gAm3xPThr/4m1ttd0IdbPehrf+GJ6kuuRwy3ENXt7NHoGVFbzY5XJgSGMmDMtODDpUvuBqnONYHVQg7tjjQraRs9OoB60hnY= 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=C04ouxl0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=PyBFZsnu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.157 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="C04ouxl0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="PyBFZsnu" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754901400561; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 16:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Jul 2025 16:22:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1753215733; x=1753302133; bh=Kn7IkUyHEM TZSYoyz01U0o7DiXDrevoJq12vGTmitJI=; b=C04ouxl0ZWCaYHYo1EZxFJOyqI LdA5qrdFa5VzYOppTz2LaqdP8IXU6cgI19P1HwBzan5kBrAG1Nrr3MTqGWgDneb7 i8WnDvCDXIwGRpF5wwlfWIM8qHgpBKZbYcY1I4+PPohHIGkYL3ypHLw2yNuQpw1z 4Ax6IL/QTsAyyGIjIQchdw8YBTOTY9pEAp6NySb7y1n+VGCs9v+jR6zWzssyZBvi FNByojI6LjNkznSGBxlTOk2yF7p5Ckybn7zNpjT307jOi2FsPNWDusEOHYiREoGC +Ayt3ejDxePUOpTeGmUSy5/QsveQ0H/4Uj01QZnoC/IalaHv5L1rfcYykLuw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1753215733; x=1753302133; bh=Kn7IkUyHEMTZSYoyz01U0o7DiXDrevoJq12 vGTmitJI=; b=PyBFZsnuaTVODhe5SEgROo2Q3j1vEB7P5Z4OCf+OlXzQUqpyQ89 HWYXoPrqKbeWbrdvgp6bzS6fEnaqPD7ouv1uOjX0lAhPbSD2U88q4D3eAHuMng9s DVWbR68oP7bZZmTR7XZO5PL4UJAf8t0ean8N+tmfinsYWZVRqBEwxDwbRBOhsfmY xinQXCKSqdTG/8uu/EiCDBny4CVpqqcbmOiU4MICvzyJNHNHc873LiDHmH2CRg0y VypkFLZTKFZt6h/EqHKaFv+0pwcteVZVrD7ohIB3/bDE60VZxBwpDcxAUdwyaDT8 uSJbifXcrreLusWW+yPwkohUKdaMk6J41tw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgdejheekgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucev ucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieeg ieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgih htshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhm thhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehjlhhtohgslhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtph htthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehp khhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 16:22:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Justin Tobler Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] builtin: unmark git-switch and git-restore as experimental In-Reply-To: <20250722180818.1043014-1-jltobler@gmail.com> (Justin Tobler's message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:08:16 -0500") References: <20250722180818.1043014-1-jltobler@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:22:11 -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 Justin Tobler writes: > Greetings, > > In 4e43b7ff (Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental, > 2019-04-25), the newly introduced git-switch(1) and git-restore(1) > commands were marked as experimental. This was done to provide time to > make breaking changes to the interface. It has now been over six years > since these commands were implemented and, over this time, there has not > been much change that would warrant these commands being labeled as > experimental. Do you mean "as not experimental anymore", don't you? We were hoping that we would come up with vast UI improvements, that are so much better that warrant departure from the past, allowing us room to even break the backward compatibility. Unfortunately, we do not have much to show after 5 years. But ... > At this point, it seems rather difficult to justify changing > `-c/--create` to something different as it has been that way for a long > time and is used frequently. ... yeah, people grew to rely on that experimental UI that we added, with intention to revamp and replace with much better alternative, and now it is too late to change it. > By removing the experimental marker, we help clarify the stability and > maturity of these commands. So, even though I may agree with the conclusion that we no longer would allow ourselves to break backward compatibility for these two commands, I doubt that it is stability and maturity to celebrate about. It (not the "have two speparate commands" part, but "leave ourselves room to improve these two commands" part) was a clearly failed experiment.