Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] BreakingChanges: document that we do not plan to deprecate git-checkout

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> +
> +* git-restore(1) and git-switch(1) have been introduced as a replacement for
> +  git-checkout(1). As git-checkout(1) is quite established, and as the benefit
> +  of switching to git-restore(1) and git-switch(1) is contended, all three
> +  commands will stay.

"As a replacement" is probably a bit different from the truth [*],
but I suspect that the reason why they were introduced no longer has
much relevance.  How about

    The features git-checkout(1) offers are covered by the pair of
    commands git-restore(1) and git-switch(1).  Because the use of
    git-checkout(1) is still widespread, and it is not expected that
    this will change anytime soon.

or something (borrowing from your proposed log message)?

[Footnote]

 * If we were to mention the history behind the introduction, we'd
   end up saying: as an experiment, we introduced the pair of
   commands that do different half of the original command to see if
   they can replace the original.

   The decision to keep the original would lead to implication that
   this was a failed experiment, which makes people (unnecessarily)
   wonder if the failed experiment should be removed.  I am trying
   to avoid such unnecessary implication here.