From: Alex Riesen Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:13:21 GMT Subject: Re: git sequencer prototype Message-ID: <20080705081321.GA4935@blimp.local> In-Reply-To: <7vwsk1ti6y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano, Sat, Jul 05, 2008 00:09:41 +0200: > Alex Riesen writes: > > > Stephan Beyer, Tue, Jul 01, 2008 04:38:30 +0200: > >> Hi, > >> > >> here is the patchset for the git-sequencer prototype, documentation, > >> test suite and a first git-am and git-rebase-i migration. > >> Indeed, monster patches. ;) > > > > 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? It will be a backend to am/rebase and not something the users > will type from the command line, won't it? There is not a huge lot of possible meanings of "seq" in the given context. Somehow I find it hard to believe someone will be confused by a backend command with a short name "seq" (seq-uence-something?) It'll make the lines shorter, less need to wrap them. BTW, what does "am" (git am) mean?