Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I've tried to improve it, does the following paragraph sound clear
> enough?
>
> branch: group related arguments of create_branch()
>
> New arguments were added to create_branch() whenever the need
> arised and they were added to tail of the argument list. This
> resulted in the related arguments not being close to each other.
OK, I understand what you wanted to say. But I do not think that is
based on a true history.
- f9a482e6 ("checkout: suppress tracking message with "-q"",
2012-03-26) adds 'quiet' just after 'clobber_head', exactly
because they are related, and leaves 'track' at the end.
- 39bd6f72 ("Allow checkout -B <current-branch> to update the
current branch", 2011-11-26) adds 'clobber_head' not at the end but
before 'track', which is left at the end.
- c847f537 ("Detached HEAD (experimental)", 2007-01-01) split 'start'
into 'start_name' and 'start_sha1' (the latter was laster removed)
and this was not a mindless "add at the end", either.
- 0746d19a ("git-branch, git-checkout: autosetup for remote branch
tracking", 2007-03-08) did add track at the end, but that is
justifiable, as it has no relation to any other parameter.
You could call 39bd6f72 somewhat questionable as 'clobber_head' is
related to 'force' more strongly than it is to 'reflog' [*1*], but
it is unfair to blame anything else having done a mindless "add at
the end".
[Footnote]
*1* I actually think the commit added 'clobber_head' because for the
purpose of what the commit did, it closely was related to 'track',
turning <force, reflog, track> into <force, reflog, clobber, track>.
Arguably, it could have done <force, clobber, track, reflog> instead.
