From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 19:56:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: rework the descriptions of rename and copy operations
Message-ID: <164b9780e82b3c677ad97fc8545353e7@manjaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <ad20099a-918d-4c37-8d5c-20c3f491728a@gmail.com>

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.