Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > BTW, how about renaming it in something short: git seq. There is > > already a seq(1) in GNU coreutils, which does roughly the same (prints > > a sequence of numbers), why not reuse the name? > > Is it advantageous to use shorter but less descriptive name for this > command? I also think descriptive names are nice for git even if the user should type that, since tab completion exists. When I've started with git, I loved the fact that I could use tab completion to learn new git commands and that often the name was descriptive enough to get an imagination of what the tool could do (and then read the manpage to verify...) > It will be a backend to am/rebase and not something the users > will type from the command line, won't it? Usually, but for special cases it is also nicely usable by the user and the --status and --edit subcommands are intended to be used by the user, too. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@xxxxxxx>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F -- 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
