Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

Sergey Organov [off-list ref] writes:

Isn't --merge a different (and inferior) way to achieve what we already
have elsewhere with --autostash? Does it make sense to get rid of --merge
here in favor of --autostash?

Not really.

The "--autostash" might appear to be applicable to cases that can
induce larger conflict, but once the diversion gets larger than what
one comfortably can deal with "checkout -m", the user is better off
to work by forking a branch there and create a WIP commit, than deal
with the stash.  So if anything, I'd rather get rid of "--autostash"
than "-m", to help users get in a better work habit.