On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:03 PM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I don't see why <start-point> even makes sense to use with --orphan; > > you should error if both are given, IMO. The point of --orphan is to > > create some entirely new history. So, I'd expect "git switch --orphan > > <new-branch>" to: > > * not create refs/heads/<new-branch> > > * set HEAD to refs/heads/<new-branch> > > * empty all tracked files from the working tree. > > * empty the index > > > > Alternatively, you could allow <start-point> to be passed with > > --orphan, adjusting the above steps so that both the index and the > > working tree are switched to match <start-point>, but ONLY if > > <start-point> defaults to the empty tree when --orphan is passed. > > Do you mean that it's like <start-point> is not really a start-point > but is an initial tree, i.e. > > switch --orphan --initial-tree=<tree-ish> <new-branch> > > is a mere short-hand for > > switch --orphan <new-branch> && > restore --from-tree=<tree-ish> .
Yes. > I think that does make sense, but at the same time, I think a major > reason why people say "checkout does too many things depending on > the arguments and conext to be easily explained" is exactly due to > its many "if you give X, it is like writing this longer command > sequence" short hands, so... Yes, this is a concern for me too. I would be happier if we made --orphan and <start-point> incompatible and avoided the need to explain how they worked together. Besides, as you point out, the wording is bad and should instead be a separate option named --initial-tree=<tree-ish> which people will then start asking us to allow them to specify even in cases when --orphan isn't (e.g. `git switch --initial-tree=HEAD maint`), which is a weird/esoteric usecase that is probably better served by using separate commands. > > How about: > > > > """ > > Switching and creating branches always involves knowing the > > <start-point> to begin the new branch from. Sometimes, people want to > > create a new branch that does not have any commits yet; --orphan is a > > flag to allow that. --orphan overrides the default of HEAD for > > <start-point> instead causing us to start from an empty history. The > > use of --orphan is incompatible with specifying a <start-point>. > > """ > > With or without the short-hand to say which initial tree to populate > the index from, the above description makes sense to me. Yeah, perhaps "...an empty history with all tracked files removed from the index and working tree. The use of..."
