On Friday 25 May 2018 01:01 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 03:22:14PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Hmm, actually, I suppose the true value of the warning is to help people > doing "git branch -l foo", and it would still work there. The "more > extreme" from your suggested patch would only affect "branch -l". > > Still, I think I prefer the gentler version that we get by keeping it as > a warning even in the latter case. > I never wanted to suppress the warning message in the latter case. I just wanted to avoid listing the branches. Actually the patch I sent in one the previous threads[1] that avoids listing the branches has the following behaviour, $ git branch -l warning: the '-l' alias for '--create-reflog' is deprecated; warning: it will be removed in a future version of Git usage: git branch [<options>] [-r | -a] [--merged | --no-merged] or: git branch [<options>] [-l] [-f] <branch-name> [<start-point>] or: git branch [<options>] [-r] (-d | -D) <branch-name>... or: git branch [<options>] (-m | -M) [<old-branch>] <new-branch> or: git branch [<options>] (-c | -C) [<old-branch>] <new-branch> or: git branch [<options>] [-r | -a] [--points-at] or: git branch [<options>] [-r | -a] [--format] So, the warning message isn't lost. It just prevents the listing of branches. Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "warning". You're probably meaning something related to the way Git exits in both cases. With your patch "git branch -l" prints a warning, lists the branches and has an exit status of 0. With my patch it prints the warning, the usage specifications with exit status 128. In that case, I still don't think it's bad to turn "git branch -l" into an error now as it's been incorrect for a long time now and it's not wrong if we correct it now. Anyways, if you think it mustn't turn into an error now and only in the next stage, a suggestion follows in another thread. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/1527174618.10589.4.camel@xxxxxxxxx/ -- Sivaraam QUOTE: “The most valuable person on any team is the person who makes everyone else on the team more valuable, not the person who knows the most.” - John Sonmez Sivaraam? You possibly might have noticed that my signature recently changed from 'Kaartic' to 'Sivaraam' both of which are parts of my name. I find the new signature to be better for several reasons one of which is that the former signature has a lot of ambiguities in the place I live as it is a common name (NOTE: it's not a common spelling, just a common name). So, I switched signatures before it's too late. That said, I won't mind you calling me 'Kaartic' if you like it [of course ;-)]. You can always call me using either of the names. KIND NOTE TO THE NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER: As I'm not a native English speaker myself, there might be mistaeks in my usage of English. I apologise for any mistakes that I make. It would be "helpful" if you take the time to point out the mistakes. It would be "super helpful" if you could provide suggestions about how to correct those mistakes. Thanks in advance!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
