From: Jay Soffian Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:37:52 GMT Subject: Re: branch --set-upstream considered harmful Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201006070837.16713.trast@student.ethz.ch> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Thomas Rast wrote: > Jay Soffian wrote: >> >> Git is inconsistent. > [...] >> $ git branch --set-upstream=origin/master >> $ git branch --set-upstream origin/master > > Doesn't this just make it *more* confusing? > > Either we document this, and the user will be left wondering why we > have two almost identical (and by the conventions of many other > programs, including git-send-email, *equivalent*) syntaxes doing, > well, something not quite entirely unlike the same. > > Or we don't, and the user will eventually typo it and wonder WTF he > just did wrong. Please take a step back and see my original message. The thing that motivated this is that the existing invocation is, I claim, bass-ackwards. I was merely looking for a backwards compatible solution that doesn't introduce yet another argument. But, maybe set-upstream hasn't been around so long that breaking it (i.e., making it an option that requires an argument) wouldn't be a bad idea. Enough talk, I'll send up a patch when I get some more time. j.