Re: possible usability issue in rebase -i?

From: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2009, 14:41 UTC
Message-ID: <40aa078e0910280741w1656757asbdfab417688f3e8c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2faad3050910280734l7297c30erfb0a47b12b0bd07d@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Baz <brian.ewins@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 2009/10/28 Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com>:
>> I'm not sure I follow - aren't dashless options, uhm, dashless? Do you
>> mean to use the long-form instead of the short-form? I'll assume
>> that's what you mean for now, since you changed "-i" to "--interactive
>> | -i".
>
> No, I just meant 'git rebase' not 'git-rebase'. Sorry, I changed a
> couple of things at once.

Ah, didn't notice that one. I completely agree with you on this.

Show 6 quoted lines

> tend to emit one-liners. As for calling out 'interactive', at the
> other extreme its not clear to me why we mention '-i' separately from
> '[options]' at all. rebase is already pretty inconsistent here, giving
> short or long usage messages depending on whether you passed '-i'. But
> I'll take comments on this when I submit the patch, I've no strong
> feelings on it.

It's a simple reason why the output is different - this is the usage for "git rebase -i" (hence it is in git-rebase--interactive.sh). I guess this distinction would be slightly clearer if we removed the brackets from the usage like this:

-git-rebase [-i] [whatever] +git-rebase -i [whatever]

-- 
Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund