RE: Naming the --forec option [[Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation]]

Martin wrote:

On 10/07/2021 22:49, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Martin wrote:

quoted

For each force-needing action, you should have to specify it's own force 
flag. >

 > OK, but I don't see the concrete proposal. What would be the
 > flag that
 > makes -c "forceful"?
 >

Well that starts yet another topic.

At the moment, it is
    --force-create which is absorbing the flag into the option.

And by (apparent) convention it also is the uppercasing of the option
    -C
same as the uppercasing of the -B in checkout.

I am not really sure if the uppercasing is the best idea.

Me neither, and it's not something I generally use.

If your suggestion "core.advanced " were to come, I would vote that 
uppercase single letter force options should be restricted to advanced.

I would not count on it. I suggested core.mode back in 2013 [1], so...

If -n is introduced, we can think about what to do about -N.
Should the  --force-*  style be kept?
    --force-new
    -N

Or the (unfortunate? / see below ) "--discard-changes" style:
    --discard-existing-branch -n <branchname>

I am against using --reset instead of --force-new.

That's OK, and in fact I can see how '--reset --new' is clunky, I'm just
saying it is a possibility. But the main point is that something like
`git switch --reset` is missing, although `git switch --move` would
probably do the trick.

At least I can say, if I use "-N", I want a *new* branch. I don't care 
about any old branch under that name.

Right, I would as well, but in fact I would expect the same from -n
(although I can see how a newbie might not).

Also "--reset" does not have the same alerting properties to me, as 
"force" or "discard" have.
This may be my English, but to me "reset" does not have the same 
alerting property.

OK, maybe it's a language issue. I'm not a native English speaker, my
mother tongue is Spanish, but I'm pretty sure my understanding of
"reset" is what most people understand: set again.

Using Merriam Webster [2]:

  1: to set again or anew
  2: to change the reading of often to zero

And there's plenty of corroboration; reorder: order again (whatever
order you had is lost), reassign: assign again (whatever assignment you
had is gone), replay: play again (whatever you were playing is gone),
and so on.

The general problem is, if there is more than one force-needing action, 
then which one does -f  act on?

Any force-needing action, that only applies with another option (such as 
-N) can have a --force-*. So the plain -f is not used for it.

But, what if more than one force-needing event can happen (not just 
switch, but any command), even without any extra options? (May not yet 
be the case / not checked).

git switch has attempted to solve that.
The result IMHO is a disaster.
"-f" / "--force" is made an alias in favour for
    --discard-changes
What changes?

I see.

So *if* --force was not an alias for --discard-changes, then this would
make sense:

  git switch --new --force topic

It would _force_ the creation of a _new_ branch called "topic".

Is this close to what you are thinking?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/1379426871-6823-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com/ (local)
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reset

-- 
Felipe Contreras