On 2024-02-20 20:14, Rubén Justo wrote:
On 18-feb-2024 21:38:54, Dragan Simic wrote:
Regarding the branch copy and rename operations and their argument
names, perhaps the following would be a good choice:
--copy [<branch>] <destination>
--move [<branch>] <destination>
It would clearly reflect the nature of the performed operations, while
still using "<branch>" consistently, this time to refer to the source
branch. Using "<destination>" to select the destination name should
be pretty much self-descriptive, if you agree.
Sorry, but I don't. Actually, I don't see the logic with
<destination>.
No worries, I appreciate the directness.
I appreciate your efforts to provide consistency, but the current ones
seem better options to me: either <oldbranch> and <newbranch>, or the
shortened ones: <old> and <new>.
As I wrote a bit earlier, while replying to Junio, using "<old>" and
"<new>" (together with "<name>") is fine with me.
Though, using "<branch>" and "<new-branch>" is also a very good option,
which would additionally avoid introducing "<name>" to replace
"<branch>",
which I find highly beneficial, because it would provide consistency
with the rest of the documentation.
