Re: [PATCH 1/3] branch: introduce --set-upstream-to

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 11, 2012, 01:20 UTC
Message-ID: <7vzk77f602.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120710234717.GA21467@burratino>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> The truth is that neither one of us is right.  Both conventions
> could work, and which one is more intuitive will vary from person
> to person.

It is not just person-to-person, I think.

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, while I think

	git branch <branch> [<start>]
        git branch --set-upstream-to=<upstream> [<branch>]

so that omitted things can come uniformly at the end (of course, unless the --option=argument in the middle is omitted, that is) makes things more consistent.

I do not think it is productive to keep agreeing that we disagree and continuing to talk between ourselves without waiting for others to catch up, so I'll stop here.