Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Brandon Casey wrote: > >> Johannes Sixt wrote: >>> Brandon Casey schrieb: >>>> The first non-option argument is interpreted differently depending on >>>> whether one argument or two arguments have been supplied. >>>> >>>> git-branch -m [<oldbranch>] <newbranch> >>>> >>>> Has anyone considered whether this is inconsistent with how other >>>> commands operate? >>> Funny, I fell into this trap just yesterday and accidentally renamed >>> my master branch to something else. IMO git-branch -m should take two >>> arguments. Full stop. >> Actually, I think the single argument case is unambiguous and I would >> rather not give it up. >> >> It's the two argument case that both expects its arguments in a >> different order than other commands _and_ is dangerous in the case of >> -M. > > The order was specifically requested, as "mv" also has that order. Did you even read the original message? You point this out like it hasn't already been mentioned. The _point_ is that the order is _different_ than the order that other _git_ commands use. I give more weight to the relationship with other git commands than to the relationship between the '-M' option and the 'mv' command. A subcommand named 'mv' could have been used if a strong relationship was supposed to be implied, something like 'git-branch mv <src> <dst>'. I'm not sure the single argument case would have retained its intuitiveness in this case. > And "-M" is always dangerous. >Don't use it, if you don't know what you're > doing. Gee, thanks for the advice. -brandon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
