Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> OK, I could sympathize with that as well. I still think that my
> suggestion from earlier about documenting the fact that 'git branch -D'
> already understands '@{-N}' as a separate first patch is valid.
No question about that ;-)
> If I were the author, I'd cut that as a first patch, and discard the
> remainder if it sounds like we don't want to go with 'git branch -D -',
> which is fine by me. (I don't really care either way, and I can
> understand the arguments in both directions).
Yup, that would be what I would do, too, whether I wanted "-d -" or not.
