Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The truth is that neither one of us is right. Both conventions
> could work, and which one is more intuitive will vary from person
> to person.
It is not just person-to-person, I think.
In short, you are saying that, assuming that missing <start> and
<branch> are given a sane default values (namely "HEAD"), the
syntax:
git branch <branch> [<start>]
git branch --set-upstream-jrn [<branch>] <upstream>
is easier to understand, while I think
git branch <branch> [<start>]
git branch --set-upstream-to=<upstream> [<branch>]
so that omitted things can come uniformly at the end (of course,
unless the --option=argument in the middle is omitted, that is)
makes things more consistent.
I do not think it is productive to keep agreeing that we disagree
and continuing to talk between ourselves without waiting for others
to catch up, so I'll stop here.
--
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