Welcome to GitGitGadget

Hi @Korov, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests.

Please make sure that either:

• Your Pull Request has a good description, if it consists of multiple commits, as it will be used as cover letter.
• Your Pull Request description is empty, if it consists of a single commit, as the commit message should be descriptive enough by itself.

You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax:

CC: Revi Ewer <revi.ewer@example.com>, Ill Takalook <ill.takalook@example.net>

NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description,
because it will result in a malformed CC list on the mailing list. See
example.

Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:

• the lines should not exceed 76 columns,
• the first line should be like a header and typically start with a prefix like "tests:" or "revisions:" to state which subsystem the change is about, and
• the commit messages' body should be describing the "why?" of the change.
• Finally, the commit messages should end in a Signed-off-by: line matching the commits' author.

It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code.

Contributing the patches

Before you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form /allow. A good way to find other contributors is to locate recent pull requests where someone has been /allowed:

• Search: is:pr is:open "/allow"

Both the person who commented /allow and the PR author are able to /allow you.

An alternative is the channel #git-devel on the Libera Chat IRC network:

<newcontributor> I've just created my first PR, could someone please /allow me? https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/12345
<veteran> newcontributor: it is done
<newcontributor> thanks!

Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment /submit.

If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a /submit request, add a PR comment /preview to have the email(s) sent to you. You must have a public GitHub email address for this. Note that any reviewers CC'd via the list in the PR description will not actually be sent emails.

After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail).

If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the (raw) link), then import it into your mail program. If you use GMail, you can do this via:

curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
    --url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txt

To iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description):

Changes since v1:
- Fixed a typo in the commit message (found by ...)
- Added a code comment to ... as suggested by ...
...

To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: /submit.

Need help?

New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join.

You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, #git-devel on Libera Chat. Remember that IRC does not support offline messaging, so if you send someone a private message and log out, they cannot respond to you. The scrollback of #git-devel is archived, though.

There is an issue in commit 7e48ee7:
switch: add --ensure option

• Commit not signed off

/allow

User Korov is now allowed to use GitGitGadget.

WARNING: Korov has no public email address set on GitHub; GitGitGadget needs an email address to Cc: you on your contribution, so that you receive any feedback on the Git mailing list. Go to https://github.com/settings/profile to make your preferred email public to let GitGitGadget know which email address to use.

/submit

Submitted as pull.2324.git.git.1780997009796.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

To fetch this version into FETCH_HEAD:

git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ pr-git-2324/Korov/dev3-v1

To fetch this version to local tag pr-git-2324/Korov/dev3-v1:

git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ tag pr-git-2324/Korov/dev3-v1

Junio C Hamano wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

"Lei Zhu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> Users who often switch between topic branches may not know whether the
> local branch already exists. Without this option, they need to check
> for the branch first and then choose between `git switch <branch>` and
> `git switch -c <branch>`. The new option folds that workflow into a
> single command.

Quite honestly, I am not sure if the use case should be supported
with a new option, or we should actively discourage it by rejecting
any patch that takes us in this direction, as the actions the user
would take after seeing the result of "git checkout -b" or "git
switch -c" are quite different among (just off the top of my head):

 (1) Ah we already had the branch created exactly to work on this;
     instead of forking a new effort, switch to the existing branch
     and build on the effort we made previously, as it forks from an
     acceptable base, which might have been different from where we
     wanted to start at when we said "git switch -c <branch> <base>".

 (2) Ah we already had the branch created exactly to work on this.
     Unfortunately, it was forked from way too new base before we
     realized that this is also an important bugfix that needs to be
     mergeable to the maintenance track.  Let's create a new branch
     that is a copy of the existing one with "-maint" in its name,
     rebase it on the maintenance track, and work there.

 (3) Ah we already had a branch that happened to have the same name,
     but created for totally different reasons.  We do want to fork
     a new branch but need to give it a different name.

 (4) There wasn't a branch with the given name, so we created a new
     branch at the right starting point we just picked when we ran
     "git checkout -b"/"git switch -c".  Let's start working on the
     topic.

You cover *only* case (4) perfectly.  When your "-c <branch>" picks
an existing branch, the user still needs to figure out which among
situations (1)-(3) (of course, there may be others) they are in, and
act accordingly.  "git checkout -b" and "git switch -c" that fails,
reminding that there is an existing branch with the same name, gives
users a stronger form of reminder than switching blindly to the
existing branch, which may (in case (1)) or may not (in cases (2)
and (3)) be where the user wants to be when taking the next action.

Having said that.

 * The option name "-e" would make all users expect that this has
   something to do with "--editor".  Start with a longer name,
   perhaps "--create-if-missing" or something, and then see if
   others can come up with a better short-hand.  Obviously whoever
   chooses "-e" is not equipped well to do so (yet), and the
   reviewer who pointed out "-e" is not a good idea without being
   able to offer a better alternative is not, either ;-).

 * Adding a new flag only to "switch" without "checkout" will
   unnecessary confuse users.  This is because, even though
   "switch/restore" started as an experiment to _supersede_
   "checkout", they were not successful, not in the sense that
   "switch/restore" were harder to use than the original, but in the
   sense that the userbase and teaching materials are already used
   to the original and removing it is practically infeasible.

Junio C Hamano wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

"Lei Zhu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> Users who often switch between topic branches may not know whether the
> local branch already exists. Without this option, they need to check
> for the branch first and then choose between `git switch <branch>` and
> `git switch -c <branch>`. The new option folds that workflow into a
> single command.

Quite honestly, I am not sure if the use case should be supported
with a new option, or we should actively discourage it by rejecting
any patch that takes us in this direction, as the actions the user
would take after seeing the result of "git checkout -b" or "git
switch -c" are quite different among (just off the top of my head):

 (1) Ah we already had the branch created exactly to work on this;
     instead of forking a new effort, switch to the existing branch
     and build on the effort we made previously, as it forks from an
     acceptable base, which might have been different from where we
     wanted to start at when we said "git switch -c <branch> <base>".

 (2) Ah we already had the branch created exactly to work on this.
     Unfortunately, it was forked from way too new base before we
     realized that this is also an important bugfix that needs to be
     mergeable to the maintenance track.  Let's create a new branch
     that is a copy of the existing one with "-maint" in its name,
     rebase it on the maintenance track, and work there.

 (3) Ah we already had a branch that happened to have the same name,
     but created for totally different reasons.  We do want to fork
     a new branch but need to give it a different name.

 (4) There wasn't a branch with the given name, so we created a new
     branch at the right starting point we just picked when we ran
     "git checkout -b"/"git switch -c".  Let's start working on the
     topic.

You cover *only* case (4) perfectly.  When your "-c <branch>" picks
an existing branch, the user still needs to figure out which among
situations (1)-(3) (of course, there may be others) they are in, and
act accordingly.  "git checkout -b" and "git switch -c" that fails,
reminding that there is an existing branch with the same name, gives
users a stronger form of reminder than switching blindly to the
existing branch, which may (in case (1)) or may not (in cases (2)
and (3)) be where the user wants to be when taking the next action.

Having said that.

 * The option name "-e" would make all users expect that this has
   something to do with "--editor".  Start with a longer name,
   perhaps "--create-if-missing" or something, and then see if
   others can come up with a better short-hand.  Obviously whoever
   chooses "-e" is not equipped well to do so (yet), and the
   reviewer who pointed out "-e" is not a good idea without being
   able to offer a better alternative is not, either ;-).

 * Adding a new flag only to "switch" without "checkout" will
   unnecessary confuse users.  This is because, even though
   "switch/restore" started as an experiment to _supersede_
   "checkout", they were not successful, not in the sense that
   "switch/restore" were harder to use than the original, but in the
   sense that the userbase and teaching materials are already used
   to the original and removing it is practically infeasible.

Thanks, I rerolled this as a cleaned-up single-commit version.

I dropped the -e short option and renamed the option to
--create-if-missing. I also extended the same behavior to git checkout, while keeping it branch-only there and rejecting pathspec
usage.

The new version includes updated documentation and tests for branch
creation, existing-branch switching, tracking updates, pathspec
rejection, and detached-HEAD failure cases.

Junio C Hamano wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

"Lei Zhu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> Users who often switch between topic branches may not know whether the
> local branch already exists. Without this option, they need to check
> for the branch first and then choose between `git switch <branch>` and
> `git switch -c <branch>`. The new option folds that workflow into a
> single command.

Quite honestly, I am not sure if the use case should be supported
with a new option, or we should actively discourage it by rejecting
any patch that takes us in this direction, as the actions the user
would take after seeing the result of "git checkout -b" or "git
switch -c" are quite different among (just off the top of my head):

 (1) Ah we already had the branch created exactly to work on this;
     instead of forking a new effort, switch to the existing branch
     and build on the effort we made previously, as it forks from an
     acceptable base, which might have been different from where we
     wanted to start at when we said "git switch -c <branch> <base>".

 (2) Ah we already had the branch created exactly to work on this.
     Unfortunately, it was forked from way too new base before we
     realized that this is also an important bugfix that needs to be
     mergeable to the maintenance track.  Let's create a new branch
     that is a copy of the existing one with "-maint" in its name,
     rebase it on the maintenance track, and work there.

 (3) Ah we already had a branch that happened to have the same name,
     but created for totally different reasons.  We do want to fork
     a new branch but need to give it a different name.

 (4) There wasn't a branch with the given name, so we created a new
     branch at the right starting point we just picked when we ran
     "git checkout -b"/"git switch -c".  Let's start working on the
     topic.

You cover *only* case (4) perfectly.  When your "-c <branch>" picks
an existing branch, the user still needs to figure out which among
situations (1)-(3) (of course, there may be others) they are in, and
act accordingly.  "git checkout -b" and "git switch -c" that fails,
reminding that there is an existing branch with the same name, gives
users a stronger form of reminder than switching blindly to the
existing branch, which may (in case (1)) or may not (in cases (2)
and (3)) be where the user wants to be when taking the next action.

Having said that.

 * The option name "-e" would make all users expect that this has
   something to do with "--editor".  Start with a longer name,
   perhaps "--create-if-missing" or something, and then see if
   others can come up with a better short-hand.  Obviously whoever
   chooses "-e" is not equipped well to do so (yet), and the
   reviewer who pointed out "-e" is not a good idea without being
   able to offer a better alternative is not, either ;-).

 * Adding a new flag only to "switch" without "checkout" will
   unnecessary confuse users.  This is because, even though
   "switch/restore" started as an experiment to _supersede_
   "checkout", they were not successful, not in the sense that
   "switch/restore" were harder to use than the original, but in the
   sense that the userbase and teaching materials are already used
   to the original and removing it is practically infeasible.

Thanks, I rerolled this as a cleaned-up single-commit version.

I dropped the -e short option and renamed the option to --create-if-missing. I also extended the same behavior to git checkout, while keeping it branch-only there and rejecting pathspec usage.

The new version includes updated documentation and tests for branch creation, existing-branch switching, tracking updates, pathspec rejection, and detached-HEAD failure cases.

@Korov PR comments are not mirrored to the Git mailing list. You need to follow the guidance in the "Reply to this" link (or simply reply via your regular mail program, the email in question should be in your inbox).

@dscho Thanks, I will reply on the mailing list and reroll after fixing the completion test failure.

/submit

Submitted as pull.2324.v2.git.git.1781693828456.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

To fetch this version into FETCH_HEAD:

git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ pr-git-2324/Korov/dev3-v2

To fetch this version to local tag pr-git-2324/Korov/dev3-v2:

git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/ tag pr-git-2324/Korov/dev3-v2