From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:20:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] branch: introduce --set-upstream-to
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.