On 15-feb-2024 23:27:59, Dragan Simic wrote: > Hello Ruben and Junio, > > On 2024-02-15 22:52, Rubén Justo wrote: > > On 15-feb-2024 19:42:32, Dragan Simic wrote: > > > > > Move the descriptions of the <oldbranch> and <newbranch> arguments > > > to the > > > descriptions of the branch rename and copy operations, where they > > > naturally > > > belong. > > > > Thank you Dragan for working on this. > > Thank you, and everyone else, for the reviews and suggestions. > > > Let me chime in just to say that maybe another terms could be considered > > here; like: "<branchname>" and "<newbranchname>" (maybe too long...) or > > so. > > > > I have no problem with the current terms, but "<branchname>" can be a > > sensible choice here as it is already being used for other commands > > where, and this may help overall, the consideration: "if ommited, the > > current branch is considered" also applies. > > Actually, I'd agree with Junio's reply that suggested using even > shorter terms. Me too :-) > Just like "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" can safely > be shortened to "<old>" and "<new>", respectively, "<branchname>" > can also be shortened to "<name>". > > It's all about the context, which is improved by moving the descriptions > of the arguments closer to the descriptions of the commands. Your series is an improvement in that respect. Thank you. > > Though, I'd prefer that we keep "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" (and > "<branchname>") for now, for the sake of consistency, and I'd get them > shortened in the future patches. Nice!
