From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:46:35 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Rename submodule.<name>.rebase to submodule.<name>.update
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:
> 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