Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So I think you're proposing: > > - step 0: warn about "-l" when it actually gets used, and otherwise > continue ignoring > > - step 1: turn "-l" into "--list" > > - step 2: there is no step 2 > > ... So I > guess the right rule is to warn when we are not in list-mode, and > otherwise quietly accept it. > > That does mean that anybody who misses the deprecation warning may be > surprised when "branch -l foo" starts listing instead of creating a > branch with a reflog (whereas in the current 3-step plan, we have a > period in the middle where that's a hard error). That may be OK, though, > and is a natural consequence of getting to the end step sooner (even > with a 3-step plan, anybody who skips the versions in the middle _could_ > be surprised). Thanks for a concise and readably summary ;-)
