On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > and without getting any answer to them. Perhaps the proposed log > > message for [1/9] can be made a bit more robust to cover it? > > > > Sure, I'll look at what I can do to make this more logical. > > > Thanks. > > I'll have a v3 which splits most of the tests into their own patch with a better description of the reasoning of the problem with output and the new expected behavior. The commit descriptions for the improvements will then focus primarily on the reasons for the particular method of implementing that output. It's a few more patches, but hopefully it will read more logically, and we can help settle some of the open questions: particular to interest me is: what sort of words should we complete when completing a new branch name for --orphan, -c/-C and -b/-B? I think all of these ought to remain as consistent as possible, but I'm not sure what other folks think. Thanks, Jake
