From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann Dirson Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Use --find- instead of --detect- as prefix for Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:28:08 +0100 Organization: Bertin Technologies Message-ID: <20101130082808.415dc3c1@chalon.bertin.fr> References: <7vfwujy7co.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: gister@pobox.com, kevin@sb.org To: git list X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 30 08:38:52 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PNKna-00046f-LL for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:38:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754080Ab0K3Hip (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:38:45 -0500 Received: from blois.bertin.fr ([195.68.26.9]:38160 "EHLO blois.bertin.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754011Ab0K3Hip (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:38:45 -0500 Received: from blois.bertin.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123FB542BE for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:38:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from YPORT1 (yport1.bertin.fr [192.168.1.13]) by blois.bertin.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA6A542C5 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:38:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from chalon.bertin.fr ([172.16.1.1]) by yport1.innovation.bertin.fr (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPPA id <0LCO00MJIT8IGVB0@yport1.innovation.bertin.fr> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:38:42 +0100 (CET) In-reply-to: <7vfwujy7co.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8200-6.0.0.1038-17798.005 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio: > Kevin wrote: > > Given my druthers, I'd prefer to go with --detect-copies-harder, but > > at this point I don't have as much of a strong preference anymore. > > The patch is smaller, and we often say "rename detection", not "rename > finding", so it may probably make more sense. OTOH: * when cumulated to the still-recent patch adding the long forms, not using a synonym is shorter * if it is just "adding a synonym" without deprecation, it only adds a new option for little gain; OTOH deprecating such an old option may not be such a good idea (not to mention it would make the patch longer ;) * The --find-* forms are still shorter to spell -- Yann Dirson - Bertin Technologies