Re: [PATCH] branch: rework the descriptions of rename and copy operations

["Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>]

On 15-feb-2024 23:27:59, Dragan Simic wrote:
> Hello Ruben and Junio,
> 
> On 2024-02-15 22:52, Rubén Justo wrote:
> > On 15-feb-2024 19:42:32, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > 
> > > Move the descriptions of the <oldbranch> and <newbranch> arguments
> > > to the
> > > descriptions of the branch rename and copy operations, where they
> > > naturally
> > > belong.
> > 
> > Thank you Dragan for working on this.
> 
> Thank you, and everyone else, for the reviews and suggestions.
> 
> > Let me chime in just to say that maybe another terms could be considered
> > here;  like: "<branchname>" and "<newbranchname>" (maybe too long...) or
> > so.
> > 
> > I have no problem with the current terms, but "<branchname>" can be a
> > sensible choice here as it is already being used for other commands
> > where, and this may help overall, the consideration: "if ommited, the
> > current branch is considered" also applies.
> 
> Actually, I'd agree with Junio's reply that suggested using even
> shorter terms.

Me too :-)

> Just like "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" can safely
> be shortened to "<old>" and "<new>", respectively, "<branchname>"
> can also be shortened to "<name>".
> 
> It's all about the context, which is improved by moving the descriptions
> of the arguments closer to the descriptions of the commands.

Your series is an improvement in that respect.  Thank you.

> 
> Though, I'd prefer that we keep "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" (and
> "<branchname>") for now, for the sake of consistency, and I'd get them
> shortened in the future patches.

Nice!