On 7/28/21 7:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I am afraid that you are misinterpreting what I said, comparing
apples and oranges, and drawing a wrong conclusion >
When I said "-m" would not fly well as a short-hand for "--merge" in
the context of "pull", I didn't mean "nobody would think 'm' stands
for 'merge'", and I didn't mean "more people would think 'm' stands
for 'message' more than 'merge'". The reason why I find it
problematic is because it can be ambiguous >
When we step back and think about your "switch -m" and its synonym
"checkout -m", we realize that these commands fundamentally never
take "--message", as there is no place to record such a message
(they do not create a commit after all), after they switch to a
different branch while carrying the local modification forward by
performing a (possibly conflicting) content-level merge. That is
why we can give their "merge" operation a short-and-sweet "m"
without confusing our users. So contrasting "switch" having "-m"
that means "merge" with "pull" that can conceivably take both
"merge" and "message" is not a comparison you can draw useful
conclusion from.
I must confess that this comparison is indeed not a valid one. Maybe -m
isn't as great as I thought it was.
--
aixigo AG
Karl-Friedrich-Str. 68, 52072 Aachen, Germany
phone: +49 (0)241 559709-390, fax: +49 (0)241 559709-99
email: matthias.baumgarten@xxxxxxxxxx
web: https://www.aixigo.com
District Court Aachen – HRB 8057
Board: Christian Friedrich, Tobias Haustein
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr. Roland Schlager
