On Wednesday 03 June 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I noticed this patch still leaves the --rebase commandline flag. > > Shouldn't that be changed to --update=rebase for consistency? > > If we were to add many more (I think --update=merge was mentioned, but do > we have any other plausibly useful modes of operations?) options, it > would make sense to support --update=rebase; my impression from the > previous discussion was that rebase would make sense for more people than > other modes would, so it also would make sense to keep --rebase as a > shorthand, rather than forcing everybody to say --update=rebase for the > sake of consistency. I agree. Even if we had a hundred alternatives, the most common should be available in shorthand form. Also, I don't think it makes sense to introduce --update=foo until we have, say, 3-4 different alternatives. As long as --rebase and --merge are the only alternatives (no other alternatives have been suggested so far, AFAIK), I don't think we need to introduce --update=foo. Have fun! :) ...Johan -- Johan Herland, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> www.herland.net -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html