Re: PATCH: improve git switch documentation

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

Sergey Organov wrote:

quoted

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Sergey Organov wrote:

quoted

Martin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 10/07/2021 12:24, Sergey Organov wrote:

quoted

Martin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Actually, "new" or "create" would make sense in "git branch". But in
git switch, they actually raise the question "create what?" / "new
what?".

I believe that's because "git switch" tries to do too much.
"git switch"
should rather switch between existing branches, and do nothing else. As
I said once in this discussion already: trouble writing good
documentation is often indication of some flaws in the design.
Creating (a branch) is fundamentally different operation than switching
to (a branch), and that's why the former doesn't fit into "git switch".

Right, yes. But creating a branch is often followed by switching to it.

Yep, but here the creation is the primary operation, not switching, so
putting this into "git switch" looks like design flaw. These 2 actions
are fine to co-exist in "git branch" = "whatever you want to do to
branches", but not in "git switch" == "wherever you want to switch".

I don't see the logic in here.

  git branch topic # here 'branch' is the verb

Not to me. I assumed the "branch" is always a noun in "git branch", and
the actual meaning of this command is:

   git branch [create|new] topic

I.e., creation just being the default action taken on the branch.

The question is not what you assumed, the question is can other people
assume otherwise?

Sure they can, and that's part of the problem. I described how *I* see
it, as I try to interpret things as coherently as possible, and I don't
like to interpret "branch" in "git branch" as either noun or verb
depending on options when universal interpretation as noun is
sufficient.

"branch" can be a verb, that's a fact.

Yep, who argues?

My argument is that specifically in "git branch" it could be universally
interpreted as noun, but can't universally be interpreted as verb, so
/for me/ it's noun there.

quoted

quoted

quoted

To me, while the latter is obvious, it's verb and specifies the action
to be performed, the former looks more like "whatever you want to do
with branches", and thus the "branch" is a noun there and the command
thus is object-oriented.

I agree, and I did have indeed noticed the inconsistency. But there's
another category of commands that receive subcommands, like:

  git remote $subcommand
  git worktree $subcommand
  git bisect $subcommand

In my opinion `git branch` fits more these subcommand commands, and it
was a mistake to make the subcommands options, it should be:

  git branch list
  git branch new
  git branch set-upstream
  git branch move
  ...

Now the verb is crystal-clear.

Yes, lacking (assumed) subcommands is yet another dimension of
inconsistencies.

I mean what I'm after is inconsistency of the first argument to "git".
It's being the verb more often is where we currently are, at least when
considering "primary" commands that "git help" outputs. 

I mean, consider:

   git branch new nice-feature

vs

   git new branch nice-feature

It should have been the latter, when in fact it's currently the
[reduced] former.

I disagree. I prefer the former.

     git create branch "nice-feature"

Almost plain human language. Isn't it nice? I mean I fail to see why
you prefer the former, but I don't care that much either.

Either way this is way too far from the original point. I don't think
you can convince me that `git new branch` makese sense, but there's no
need for that.

To move forward we need to find consensus, and if you and me agree that
`git branch new` makes sense, that's where we should focus on.

It does make sense, in isolation.

No, I don't think it's an option, as unfortunately for your preferences,

        git branch new

looks impossible to introduce in a backward compatible manner, nor there
is significant need to, as

        git branch

already does the job, even if by introducing syntax irregularity. 

Even standardizing `git branch` would be an almost-impossible task, even
if we manage to convince others. `git new branch` even more
impossible.

Quite an opposite. In fact it's easier to add new ways of doing things
that, provided they prove being useful, eventually obsolete and replace
old ways. "git switch" and "git restore" are recent examples of that.

That's why I started to discuss "git new" that does not yet exist. No, I
don't think it will be there any time soon, as there are more important
things to improve in Git, and then overall consistency of Git command
interfaces is not recognized by the community as a valuable design goal
anyway.

Thus, for foreseeable future we will likely continue to witness hot
discussions of what "looks reasonable" and what not, contenders lacking
common ground that some basic principles of design agreed upon would
have provided.

Thanks,
-- 
Sergey Organov