Re: [PATCH] branch: rework the descriptions of rename and copy operations
- From
- Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
- Date
- Feb 19, 2024, 19:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <35738a93f5cbace5b3235ce614b7afbf@manjaro.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq8r3g8caz.fsf@gitster.g>
Hello Junio,
On 2024-02-19 20:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> writes: > >> Regarding the branch copy and rename operations and their argument >> names, perhaps the following would be a good choice: >> >> --copy [<branch>] <destination> >> --move [<branch>] <destination> >> >> It would clearly reflect the nature of the performed operations, while >> still using "<branch>" consistently, this time to refer to the source >> branch. Using "<destination>" to select the destination name should >> be pretty much self-descriptive, if you agree. > > Awful. While I was skimming the messages without reading the > Subject line (hence without realizing that this is about improving > the existing documentation and not adding new features), I thought > that these two are about moving branch to a remote repository that > is named with <destination>. > > My advice would be to stick to <old> vs <new> that contrasts well.
I appreciate the directness and honesty. How about using "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" instead, which, although more wordy, would be more consistent with "<branch>" that's used in a number of other places? Such consistency should make the users recognize the arguments better at first glance.