From: Yann Dirson Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:43:12 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Use --find- instead of --detect- as prefix for long forms of -M and -C. Message-ID: <20101112074312.GG8911@home.lan> In-Reply-To: <7884E3F5-D622-49E2-BEBE-12936F388C30@sb.org> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:00:05PM -0800, Kevin Ballard wrote: > On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Yann Dirson wrote: > > > -M[]:: > > ---detect-renames[=]:: > > +--find-renames[=]:: > > ifndef::git-log[] > > Detect renames. > > endif::git-log[] > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ endif::git-log[] > > hasn't changed. > > > > -C[]:: > > ---detect-copies[=]:: > > +--find-copies[=]:: > > Detect copies as well as renames. See also `--find-copies-harder`. > > If `n` is specified, it has the same meaning as for `-M`. > > I'm not sure I like the wording --find-copies and --find-renames. Maybe I'm > just being silly, but it sounds like those are directives, saying "I want you > to find copies/renames", as opposed to just saying "while you're working you > should also detect copies/renames". The original flag --find-copies-harder > is a bit different, because it's modifying the action of finding copies > rather than making finding copies the prime directive. Well, I don't see how --find-copies-harder is much different: it is just a more powerful version of -C, as seen by the fact that it implies -C. > On the other hand, --detect-copies and --detect-renames sounds to me like > you're just telling it that it should, well, detect copies/renames as it goes > about its business. I can understand this. However, I feel that the fact they are just options, as opposed to the explicit "diff/show/whatever" commands that take them as modifiers, would be enough to balance the nuance in the words. That may just be a matter of taste, but the consistency with --find-copies-harder may be important here. -- Yann