Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Toon Claes <toon@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So can I suggest to name the option `--no-reflog`? To me that makes it >> more obvious the reflog won't exist no more after migrating, and is more >> in line with the common UX of Git. Also emphasizing this more clearly in >> the commit message and help message also would be advised. > > I have always thought, until I saw the message I am responding to, > that everybody would expect that "migrate --skip=X --skip=Y" that > usually migrates X and Y and Z would lose X and Y with the > transition. But I realized that it was most likely because I happen > to know that the choice between reftable and files backends is > "which one do you take, you cannot have both at the same time", and > it was clear that "skip and keep using the old form" is not on the > table. For all others, your interpretation of the option name is > entirely plausible. So I agree `--no-reflog` is really an excellent > suggestion, even though `--reflog` option would be a no-op, and > `--no-refs` would be a "Huh?" option that only logically makes sense > to have for completeness but nobody would want to use ;-) I share the same reaction. I didn't consider that flow of thought at all. So I too agree with name change. Let me push in a new version. Although I'm not sure if, Junio, you want to wait for the `git reflog drop` command that we were discussing before accepting this topic [1]. I'll leave that to your discretion. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/xmqq4j0xpvmu.fsf@gitster.g/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature