Re: [PATCH 1/2] Rename submodule.<name>.rebase to submodule.<name>.update
- From
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
- Date
- Jun 3, 2009, 06:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200906030846.35704.johan@herland.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v4ouydp0q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wednesday 03 June 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> writes: > > I noticed this patch still leaves the --rebase commandline flag. > > Shouldn't that be changed to --update=rebase for consistency? > > If we were to add many more (I think --update=merge was mentioned, but do > we have any other plausibly useful modes of operations?) options, it > would make sense to support --update=rebase; my impression from the > previous discussion was that rebase would make sense for more people than > other modes would, so it also would make sense to keep --rebase as a > shorthand, rather than forcing everybody to say --update=rebase for the > sake of consistency.
I agree. Even if we had a hundred alternatives, the most common should be available in shorthand form.
Also, I don't think it makes sense to introduce --update=foo until we have, say, 3-4 different alternatives. As long as --rebase and --merge are the only alternatives (no other alternatives have been suggested so far, AFAIK), I don't think we need to introduce --update=foo.
Have fun! :)
...Johan
-- Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net> www.herland.net