Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

"Randall S. Becker" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Which leaves us with two hard choices regarding switch/restore, none of them
really being comfortable:

- we scrap switch/restore because their usability is not really all that
 improved relative to `git checkout`.

Please do not do that. Switch/restore is much easier to understand
for new users. The semantics are also more consistent with what
others have done with git over the years anyway (EGit as an
example). I have users who have transitioned because the commands
make sense. They have not hit any missing bits in their workflows.

quoted

- we leave switch/restore as-are (because by now, changing the options or
 the design would be almost certainly disruptive to users who already
 tried to adopt the new commands, I being one of those users).

I think we should work on the commands to cover between them
(well... and reset) to functionally cover what checkout
does. Leaving them as-is, I think is not a viable option. People
do know these are experimental and not to use in scripts - we can
hope anyway.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you that the third-choice to improve
switch/restore before we can confidently say they are no longer
"experimental" would be much nicer than giving up on them too early.