Git 2.23 introduces a new command git switch. After reading the documentation, it seems pretty much the same as git checkout <branchname>. What is the difference or use case?
Two new commands "git switch" and "git restore" are introduced to split "checking out a branch to work on advancing its history" and "checking out paths out of the index and/or a tree-ish to work on advancing the current history" out of the single "git checkout" command.
Well, according to the documentation you link to, its sole purpose is to split and clarify the two different uses of git checkout:
git switch <branchname> can now be used to change branches, as git checkout <branchname> doesgit restore can be used to reset files to certain revisions, as git checkout -- <path_to_file> doesPeople are confused by these different ways to use git checkout, as you can see from the many questions regarding git checkout here on Stack Overflow. Git developers seem to have taken this into account.
git checkout Switch branch? git checkout Get a certain version of a file? git checkout Remove changes to one file? git checkout Honestly I'm wondering how much of the normal git workflow could be done with various flags to git checkout.
git checkout isn't technically needed for anything anymore? Or is it still in use for certain things, such as checking out a commit that isn't a branch head (moving to "detached head" mode)?-b flag. It still makes a branch.
git checkout -b <branch name> you can use git switch -c <branch name> to get the same effectThe switch command indeed does the same thing as checkout, but only for those usages that switch branches. It cannot restore working tree files — that is done using restore, the other command split off from checkout.
The two commands which checkout has been split into, in summary:
switch — Switch to a specified branchrestore — Restore file(s) from another branch or sourceAs noted in your quote from the 2.23.0 release notes, the switch and restore commands were introduced to split the checkout command into two separate pieces:
In other words, checkout does two different things, and this release split each of those different things into its own focused command.
This dual purpose of checkout can be seen in its summary description in the documentation:
git-checkout - Switch branches or restore working tree files
The commit that added the switch command explains the rationale for the new commands in its commit message:
"git checkout" doing too many things is a source of confusion for many users (and it even bites old timers sometimes). To remedy that, the command will be split into two new ones: switch and restore. The good old "git checkout" command is still here and will be until all (or most of users) are sick of it.
From this, it's clear that the new commands were introduced to reduce confusion by having two focused commands, rather than one multi-purpose command.
Note that (as of April 2024) the new commands are still listed as experimental (switch, restore):
THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.
I have not found a full comparison of the checkout, switch, and restore commands anywhere. From reading through the documentation, I think this should be a fairly comprehensive comparison:
| previous command | new command |
|---|---|
git checkout <branch> | git switch <branch> |
git checkout | N/A (use git status) |
git checkout -b <new_branch> [<start_point>] | git switch -c <new-branch> [<start-point>] |
git checkout -B <new_branch> [<start_point>] | git switch -C <new-branch> [<start-point>] |
git checkout --orphan <new_branch> | git switch --orphan <new-branch> |
git checkout --orphan <new_branch> <start_point> | N/A (use git switch <start-point> then git switch --orphan <new-branch>) |
git checkout [--detach] <commit> | git switch --detach <commit> |
git checkout --detach [<branch>] | git switch --detach [<branch>] |
git checkout [--] <pathspec>… | git restore [--] <pathspec>… |
git checkout --pathspec-from-file=<file> | git restore --pathspec-from-file=<file> |
git checkout <tree-ish> [--] <pathspec>… | git restore -s <tree> [--] <pathspec>… |
git checkout <tree-ish> --pathspec-from-file=<file> | git restore -s <tree> --pathspec-from-file=<file> |
git checkout -p [<tree-ish>] [--] [<pathspec>…] | git restore -p [-s <tree>] [--] [<pathspec>…] |
As shown by this comparison, some prior usages can be converted to the new commands by simply replacing the old command name (checkout) with the new one (switch, restore), whereas others require additional adjustment. Notable changes include:
-b/-B options for creating a new branch before switching are renamed to -c/-C. They also have long option variants (--create/--force-create), unlike before.--detach (or -d) is now always required when switching to a detached head, where it was previously optional for commits but required for branches.-s (or --source) option, rather than being an inline argument.--force (or -f) now fails if there are unmerged entries, rather than ignoring them. --force has also been renamed to --discard-changes, with --force being kept as an alias.
switch using a detached head (since there's no branch). git switch -d <commit hash>, e.g. git switch -d abc123.git checkout is a bit of a Swiss Army knife in that it has several unrelated uses.
If you modify a file, but haven't staged the change, then git checkout <filename> will reverse the modifications... a quick and easy way to cancel changes to a file. You remain in the same branch.
git checkout <branchname> (as you noted) switches branches.
It is two completely different purposes, which could lead to confusion if a file name and a branch name are similar.
Having it as two commands is clearer.
git checkout <name> gives preference to the branch instead of the file.
-- from the options. This is a common idiom for many Git and other Unix commands.
git checkout <filename> frequently does work, but git checkout -- <filename> is better, as the -- clearly indicates to the git parser that the options being passed to git checkout have ended, and a list of file or directory paths has begun. This may be important, for instance, if your filename begins with a dash, such as -myfile. Doing git checkout -- -myfile should work in that case, whereas without the preceding --, the -myfile would look like a messed-up option passed to git checkout.
instead and common. No, the Unix -- idiom does not separate a git file from a git branch. This idiom stops parser to parse the - prefixed options and keep parser to parse positional arguments. There is nothing to do here with the git idioms.switch has some limitations: at the moment you can switch from any commit to <branch name>. However, it's impossible to switch from <branch name> to a particular commit with a status of detached HEAD.
So you need to use git checkout 5efb (where 5efb is an example of a hash reference to an arbitrary commit)
switch is created for the single purpose of changing branches, and when you do that, you do want to be at the HEAD of that branch. checkout is a more general operation which brings your working copy in line with any given state in the history (= commit). Since any branch name is an alias for the HEAD commit of that branch, checking out a branch is technically no different than checking out any other commit.-d you can: git switch -d 6c13tl;dr: When using checkout with --force, you can switch branches while in the middle of a merge. You can't do this with switch.
Details:
The other answers have already covered the motivation behind splitting checkout into switch and restore, as well as the fact that syntactic usage differences exist. (For example you can use checkout with a commit or a remote tracking branch such as origin/main directly, but with switch you must also explicitly specify the --detach option.) However, I have found at least one significant functionality difference too.
git switch -f is documented as such:
Proceed even if the index or the working tree differs from
HEAD. Both the index and working tree are restored to match the switching target. If--recurse-submodulesis specified, submodule content is also restored to match the switching target. This is used to throw away local changes.
And similarly, git checkout -f is documented as such (emphasis on the last sentence):
When switching branches, proceed even if the index or the working tree differs from
HEAD, and even if there are untracked files in the way. This is used to throw away local changes and any untracked files or directories that are in the way.When checking out paths from the index, do not fail upon unmerged entries; instead, unmerged entries are ignored.
It seems like the last sentence applies to the other meaning of checkout, i.e. the restore command equivalent. However, when attempting to switch branches while you are currently sitting in the middle of a merge, git checkout -f will succeed, even if you have unresolved conflicts at that moment. git switch -f does not work at all if you are currently merging (even without conflicts), as you get this error message:
fatal: cannot switch branch while merging
Note: this difference was tested using Git version 2.37.1
--force option in restore hints to me that it was probably there for the branch switch scenario, not the file restoration one.checkout -f is equivalent to git reset --hard ; git switch <branch> (without -f in the switch)? Or do I overlook some side effects of this?
switch -f doesn't attempt the reset like checkout -f does.Apart from the similarities and differences explained by other users, the Git command switch can be safer than checkout if your intention is "just change the branch."
With checkout, you can accidentally "restore" your work-in-progress files to their original state (and they are gone) like in this case. A single mistake like typing checkout instead of add can lead to a loss of changes (and I did this mistake by frequently changing branches and creating commits).
Therefore, using the switch command can prevent this kind of loss of changes.
The answer by M. Justin was really great. However, I just noticed that there is a difference in the behavior between git checkout --orphan and git switch --orphan:
git checkout --orphan new-branch git status Output:
On branch new-branch No commits yet Changes to be committed: ..... will checkout to the new-branch and will keep the tracked files.
While using switch will erase all the tracked files with a literally fresh branch:
git switch --orphan new-branch git status Output:
Switched to a new branch 'new-branch' My Git version is 2.34.1.
switching if there are uncommitted changes, staged or not. The preconditions are unclear in your post but you seem to imply that you're testing in a repository that has uncommitted but staged changes (?). Always good to be very clear and concise about the exact scenario you're referring to.git switch ~= git checkout -b [branch]. git checkout [branch] will give you a detached HEAD.
-b flag creates a new branch. git checkout [branch] will only give you a detached HEAD if the target isn't a branch name. If it is a branch name, it'll check it out, the same as git switch.
git checkout? I see no deprecation warnings when using it. But withgit switchandgit restore, I now see no need forcheckout. However, if it is not deprecated, the Git team has just made things more confusing, not less. Does anyone know the plans forgit checkout? If it does still have a use case, can someone add or edit an answer to elaborate its use case.git checkout <commit>.checkoutwill stick around just for its "corner case" that is used the minority of the time. This will stretch out the time of confusion. But I guess we'll just have to help each other out through it. :)git switch --detach <commit>