On 25/07/22 02:00PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Justin Tobler <jltobler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In 4e43b7ff (Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental, > > 2019-04-25), the newly introduced git-switch(1) and git-restore(1) > > commands were marked as experimental. This was done to provide time to > > make breaking changes to the interface. It has now been over six years > > since these commands were implemented and there has not been much change > > that would warrant these commands remaining experimental. > > Remove "and there has not been ..." and everything after this point, > and replace it with something like > > but there hasn't been much change. In the meantime, these > commands being experimental has become an old news. People have > become so grown to rely on how these commands work, it is no > longer feasible for us to now make breaking changes to them. > > Let's mark them no longer experimental. > > or something like that, perhaps. Will update in the next version. > > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-restore.adoc b/Documentation/git-restore.adoc > > index 96de9bb5ed7..903e8c4618a 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/git-restore.adoc > > +++ b/Documentation/git-restore.adoc > > @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ otherwise from the index. Use `--source` to restore from a different commit. > > See "Reset, restore and revert" in linkgit:git[1] for the differences > > between the three commands. > > > > -THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE. > > - > > OPTIONS > > ------- > > `-s <tree>`:: > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-switch.adoc b/Documentation/git-switch.adoc > > index 7b24450f841..1d46010292d 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/git-switch.adoc > > +++ b/Documentation/git-switch.adoc > > @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ Switching branches does not require a clean index and working tree > > however if the operation leads to loss of local changes, unless told > > otherwise with `--discard-changes` or `--merge`. > > > > -THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE. > > - > > OPTIONS > > ------- > > _<branch>_:: > > I think these two changes are OK. I personally do not think [1/2] > is a great idea. At least I am not convinced myself not yet. > > And if [1/2] were a good idea, then we probably should apply it, and > then wait for another 5 years before proceeding to this [2/2] patch. I'm not sure even five years would be enough ;-) Thanks, -Justin
