From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 76F3377650 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708452272; cv=none; b=ChFuyVL495UDAtoz7Kxc58ht7n2gCEEgJCImt3ibvGtmDrRloVpk3P/jBXDNUq8N+Wu88qVPr+voNoQ/Zr3YWsxE5K0Uo6rzhh+i73EcB+57E58fX1NfSZyCmR0EbTpRIm6UlmOl3DRAtFVHUr9mTKBctjqYt7yWx3wVDZPAUTQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708452272; c=relaxed/simple; bh=68z2Yk54GaH57HHSQPvQ2RZc/6hEb4QZC4fB1LdPddE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aXz/FfbeyaN45y3DHsXEYxFFXFaa0P5IXfjsHkbhGpU08BIUpjxK+BrU28Udu13vJC32lK7n961j+nivA+xrw9ofGRiy7VAcG+O1rZZlJX+jE8CFUGoQs4U/zWa0x+MNyJm/XELUzhuA66UHc1Fp693HSVSjSBlJMzoraoKy9F0= 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=mt4emXXU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="mt4emXXU" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4019A2CE3B; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:04:30 -0500 (EST) (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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=68z2Yk54GaH5 7HHSQPvQ2RZc/6hEb4QZC4fB1LdPddE=; b=mt4emXXUY1VX1iVoqam04ExUye3E WOwBpMAGNKwdv1EznU1LTJ8q9CXr4UJVKu6XGg3uVhYQ4hHS2H8mu8sKVxQPWZ6h U9T8osAD1fn2OwngcW77+pzjh41jH6/JrBeKp/cncFPvM59elVDABvXKWF+TqL3c Kzyu7T5CUtwG+Ag= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384902CE3A; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:04:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.165.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE3D32CE38; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:04:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" Cc: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4g?= =?utf-8?B?VGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental" In-Reply-To: <920a0f61-d30b-49f1-87b3-fb947cb3c33d@app.fastmail.com> (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:36:10 +0100") References: <20240220092957.1296283-2-matttbe@kernel.org> <3523e325-98bf-4d2d-847b-28e5c4a85ec5@app.fastmail.com> <95eb92cb-7954-41c0-b542-5169ed5f9892@kernel.org> <920a0f61-d30b-49f1-87b3-fb947cb3c33d@app.fastmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:04:25 -0800 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; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7C53343A-D01A-11EE-966F-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" writes: > The only reason why I ask is because I was vaguely aware of some > discussions (don=E2=80=99t know how long ago) where someone was skeptic= al 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.c= om/ *2* https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqzg6eocmi.fsf@gitster.g/