Re: branch --set-upstream considered harmful

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jay Soffian wrote:
>>
>> Git is inconsistent.
> [...]
>> $ git branch --set-upstream=origin/master
>> $ git branch --set-upstream origin/master
>
> Doesn't this just make it *more* confusing?
>
> Either we document this, and the user will be left wondering why we
> have two almost identical (and by the conventions of many other
> programs, including git-send-email, *equivalent*) syntaxes doing,
> well, something not quite entirely unlike the same.
>
> Or we don't, and the user will eventually typo it and wonder WTF he
> just did wrong.

Please take a step back and see my original message. The thing that
motivated this is that the existing invocation is, I claim,
bass-ackwards. I was merely looking for a backwards compatible
solution that doesn't introduce yet another argument. But, maybe
set-upstream hasn't been around so long that breaking it (i.e., making
it an option that requires an argument) wouldn't be a bad idea.

Enough talk, I'll send up a patch when I get some more time.

j.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]