From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Cc: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@kernel.org>,
"Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental"
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:04:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqzfvvovva.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <920a0f61-d30b-49f1-87b3-fb947cb3c33d@app.fastmail.com> (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:36:10 +0100")
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name> writes:
> The only reason why I ask is because I was vaguely aware of some
> discussions (don’t know how long ago) where someone was skeptical about
> changing one of the two experimental commands, and then someone else in
> turn expressed some frustration about this concern since they are after
> all marked experimental. And the context was some UI/UX problems with
> the command.
There was a discussion to further make "switch" deviate from
"checkout" by taking advantage of its experimental status [*1*], for
example.
Being marked as "EXPERIMENTAL" allows us to redefine the behaviour
in a way that would break existing users, like changing what the
"-c" option means completely (so that folks who are used to say
"switch -c blah" will be surprised next time they type that command,
but they cannot complain). Once you remove the label, you no longer
have such a freedom to even imagine departing from the existing
behaviour (I wrote essentially the same thing before [*2*]). Are we
ready to paint us into such a corner yet? Is "switch/restore" perfect
and do not need departing changes anymore?
[References]
*1* https://lore.kernel.org/git/211021.86wnm6l1ip.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
*2* https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqzg6eocmi.fsf@gitster.g/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-20 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-20 9:29 [PATCH] Revert "Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental" Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
2024-02-20 9:36 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-02-20 9:58 ` Matthieu Baerts
2024-02-20 11:36 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-02-20 18:04 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2024-02-20 18:39 ` Matthieu Baerts
2024-02-20 19:57 ` Martin
2024-02-20 13:34 ` Martin
[not found] ` <dfaed16c-5e24-4dfb-8afd-b703134e5ada@mfriebe.de>
2024-02-20 16:20 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
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=xmqqzfvvovva.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=code@khaugsbakk.name \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matttbe@kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.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).