Re: [PATCH 1/3] branch: introduce --set-upstream-to
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 11, 2012, 01:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120711013756.GA2964@burratino>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vzk77f602.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> In short, you are saying that, assuming that missing <start> and > <branch> are given a sane default values (namely "HEAD"), the > syntax: > > git branch <branch> [<start>] > git branch --set-upstream-jrn [<branch>] <upstream> > > is easier to understand
I didn't propose allowing the branch argument to be omitted, actually. It would be clearest, _especially_ because one argument currently means something different, to make that error out. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
One more detail I didn't mention before: I think a convenience feature
git branch --set-upstream-to <upstream>
that takes exactly one argument and means
git branch --set-upstream HEAD <upstream>
would be fine. Having a second command to do the same thing as --set-upstream does (or adding new --set-other-things commands that use this proposed convention where the value comes before the key) and migrating awkwardly to it is what I object to.
Clearer? Jonathan