Heya, On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 23:33, Jeff King<peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:24:05PM -0700, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: >> I don't think we should touch any configured refspecs, think about how >> often one would use that vs. the inconvenience of doing so >> unintentionally. > > I think you are right. My previous message was sort of thinking out > loud, but I think on the whole, the annoyance caused by accidental > deletion is not worth it. :) Thinking out loud is good :). > I guess I find what you are doing _more_ complex, because you are really > introducing a whole new mode to push, which is "I am deleting some > stuff". As opposed to some syntactic sugar to replace the confusing > ":ref" syntax, which is what I thought the goal was. Yes, replacing the confusing ":ref" syntax was the goal, but I think the current solution does that as well. > On the other hand, "--delete <ref>" introduces its own syntactic > problems. [...] It does indeed, and I don't think that's the way to go. > Perhaps saying that "--delete=<ref>" is equivalent to ":<ref>" would be > a reasonable way of adding just the syntactic sugar. [...] That would work too I guess, although it would be technically more difficult. > Of course, maybe the goal of a "delete mode" is useful to people. I > can't think of a time when I would have used it, but then I also tend to > think ":<ref>" is elegant and obvious. ;) I don't think it's that confusing either, but it's hard to stumble upon, yes? When you're looking at the man page for git push it is easier to deduct that '--delete' is what you need, than ':master'. -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier -- 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