From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] branch: introduce --list option Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:56:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20110907195611.GD13364@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110825175301.GC519@sigill.intra.peff.net> <0785cac235c3b45537cf161c86dde8e798c4ff3e.1314367414.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <7vfwkodq5s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4E5A5290.4050005@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 07 21:56:22 2011 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 1R1OEN-0005mQ-85 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:56:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756365Ab1IGT4O (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:56:14 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:37038 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755052Ab1IGT4N (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:56:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 5203 invoked by uid 107); 7 Sep 2011 19:57:02 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:57:02 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:56:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E5A5290.4050005@drmicha.warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 04:37:04PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Currently, "-m -d" is forbidden", but "-m -v" is "-m", same for "-d -v". > Do we want to keep it like that? Probably. I'll add the tests to 4/5. Yes, I think so. "-v" just means "be more verbose"; the fact that there is currently nothing to be more verbose about with "-m" and "-d" is irrelevant. It does make me a little nervous about the "'git branch -v' automatically means 'git branch --list -v'" patch, though. It closes the door in the future to us being more or less verbose about branch creation details (and while helpful, it creates a slight inconsistency in the interface). If we are adding "-l" anyway, is it really necessary? It's not much harder to do "git branch -lv" once that is in place. -Peff