Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 01/28/2012 08:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> We could error it out (i.e. you cannot name a thing that does not yet >> exist), or we could consider it is a convenience feature that you can >> prepare a description even before you create one, or we could even tweak >> it more like "-t $name" that tries to work both on existing one (without >> changing any base) or non-existing one, creating it while at it. The last >> approach historically is the most error prone (we had numerous bugs in the >> create_branch() helper after it started allowing an existing branch when >> updating the "track" information) and I would rather not go that route if >> we can avoid it. >> >> Honestly speaking, I haven't formed an opinion. > > I vote for an error. Otherwise a typo in the branch name would lead to > the description's apparent disappearance into Nirvana. An error would, > for example, have made it clear to the OP what was happening. > > A more useful option might be > > git branch --with-description <branchname> [<start-point>] > > i.e., that a branch's description can be set at the same time as the > branch is created. So you are saying either option 1 or 3 is preferrable, while I was saying I would rather avoid 3 if we could avoid it. Is that the short version? -- 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