3 ms·

Git checkout is actually pretty consistent and only really works on branches. When you say it works on files, you actually mean it has a shorthand that works on

by djacobs 15y ago

Git checkout is actually pretty consistent and only really works on branches. When you say it works on files, you actually mean it has a shorthand that works on files: git checkout my-file ... is actually using a lot of smart defaults. Namely, you're actually running ... git checkout HEAD -- my-file If you don't specify a branch or identifier, git uses HEAD by default in most cases. (When you run git diff other-branch, you're actually running git diff HEAD other-branch.) And the dash-dash syntax is mostly optional in modern git. Not inconsistent at all, as far as I can tell. In fact, most features of git that I use on a regular basis are completely consistent and orthogonal. The exceptions are submodules and remote cache branches...

gcb 15y ago
So, in the end it worked on a file. :-)
- djacobs 15y ago
  It worked on a branch, filtered by a file name. I think that's an important distinction. That distinction unifies the definition of `git checkout`.
  - adamc 15y ago
    But But it doesn't lead to an obvious, consistent command syntax, and that was the point.
    - djacobs 15y ago
      It's a consistent syntax with smart defaults you can leave out. You wouldn't say Unix's wc is inconsistent, would you, just because it has default behavior?
      - phillmv 15y ago
        Apples to Oranges. wc is a bad example. Better example is tar vs cp, where you go cp files you want to copy destination/ and tar destination.tar files you want to archive And yes, I would say that's inconsistent.
        gcb 15y ago
        hum... both are wrong. wc is "word count" it's not a sane default. it's a obviously explicitly behavior. if git checkout were called 'git checkbranch' then you would have a point. tar does not have sane defaults. it requires explicit flags. your example (besides not working because as i said, it does not have defaults) could very well be `tar -c files you want to copy -f destination.tar` and all would be well. you actually still repeat the very first tar command line example you ever saw to this day, even not agreeing with it :)

by djacobs 15y ago

gcb 15y ago

So, in the end it worked on a file. :-)

djacobs 15y ago
It worked on a branch, filtered by a file name. I think that's an important distinction. That distinction unifies the definition of `git checkout`.
- adamc 15y ago
  But But it doesn't lead to an obvious, consistent command syntax, and that was the point.
  - djacobs 15y ago
    It's a consistent syntax with smart defaults you can leave out. You wouldn't say Unix's wc is inconsistent, would you, just because it has default behavior?
    - phillmv 15y ago
      Apples to Oranges. wc is a bad example. Better example is tar vs cp, where you go cp files you want to copy destination/ and tar destination.tar files you want to archive And yes, I would say that's inconsistent.
      - gcb 15y ago
        hum... both are wrong. wc is "word count" it's not a sane default. it's a obviously explicitly behavior. if git checkout were called 'git checkbranch' then you would have a point. tar does not have sane defaults. it requires explicit flags. your example (besides not working because as i said, it does not have defaults) could very well be `tar -c files you want to copy -f destination.tar` and all would be well. you actually still repeat the very first tar command line example you ever saw to this day, even not agreeing with it :)