On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > I am not sure if forbidding "-v --continue" adds any value; would it be > > > too much effort to allow "--continue -v" instead to achieve the same > > > degree of consistency between the two? > > > > I'll have a look at it when > > I get some time. > > This would apply on top of mz/rebase after dropping 95135b0 (rebase: > stricter check of standalone sub command, 2011-02-06). If you agree > with it, I will include it in a future re-roll. Any opinions about this, anyone? I have one example: I was rebasing some things the other day where I thought there would be no conflicts. After applying a number of patches, it turned out there were conflicts. I think allowing 'git rebase --continue -sours' would have been useful in that case. It's rare enough that I don't care much, though. The reason I'm asking is that I have a patch that fixes the problems with the command line parsing that Johannes Sixt pointed out in another mail on this thread and would like to know if I should make it apply on top of this patch or not. /Martin -- 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