On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 5:26 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 04:33:30PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- a/builtin/commit.c
> > > > +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> > > > @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > > > STATUS_FORMAT_LONG),
> > > > OPT_BOOL('z', "null", &s.null_termination,
> > > > N_("terminate entries with NUL")),
> > > > - OPT_BOOL(0, "amend", &amend, N_("amend previous commit")),
> > > > + OPT_BOOL('j', "amend", &amend, N_("amend previous commit")),
> > > [...]
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I'm not a fan. I would have trouble remembering what the short option
> > > name means, and it matches the common --jobs option for parallelism
> > > that many commands use. "git commit --am" works today already and
> > > doesn't run into those problems.
> >
> > The alternative is -A or -M which may be easier associated with
> > --amend. That "--am" also would break the moment somebody adds
> > --amsomething.
>
> I think "-A" has been considered as possibility for matching "commit -a"
> / "add -A" in the past, but I had trouble finding past discussion
> (searching for "A" in the mailing list is not very productive). It was
> mentioned in 3ba1f11426 (git-add --all: add all files, 2008-07-19), but
> that was quite a while ago.
>
> Not necessarily a blocker, but something to consider.
>
> Like Jonathan, I do find "-j" a little non-intuitive, but I agree that
> most of the intuitive ones are taken. :)
Oh well. Maybe next time we'll be more careful with adding short
options. Consider this patch dropped.
--
Duy
