From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF37D50A67 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:55:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708372538; cv=none; b=uNBYUSj+eKKJu27be8z4oe7CMkzZOYv38da1QEflaJgljKEBNGtIWCvmO9A/CHgOdkmDkgcypimPcbJCuByCQe/vxt9QM78UOL2fwiIaOme6EwnlnxOgK/pAKMU9nanKVZPzc1vPUX7M7RINh/L1fKYY0HZQFoQLs6I96RvBJIs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708372538; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4AJFdihFTKvHYCyxjkezinFTJ/w8ilCQTg0PH5DHPeQ=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=EzlcZgqQK4KwgUMiYgF7u6QlTc0uFukm7/nH3u4YRJrqK8MiKSg8UC+gc8PPsIdLnwL5N/JSskOf0cQjzmHfKfX2l4f57ZL/GplqvRLPaP1AnF/nsqLc3YNWU9ml3RkIqpjFLwkZV/AjPFtwyhhjcsmAyYLsw4ynlENmDbuAWpo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=xSuklP2b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="xSuklP2b" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1708372533; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Hh99HGkChZMWtk0H4lCiY6K8rOBJ+7Siy9BGzbCZc30=; b=xSuklP2bjJgXtqCVJWUrPOkJtshz22zhMw4yg8kevcf8iLDOx8/ODQoi+b44zoX1/vzgSd x5tKtdo0mP7r4DFsDHQDxsztno3aC11L5RdqSRo8thLboifWft1c3dRYtJI6AeBnh53Nhj Gwls6M3fCD91IAU+yf9FTs1zjzwbjiiwXuvc6TXG6v1cORB0Ec3uAwG/LTcb8sFnGv7dKI HMPA4I4f7OHC2zXL12bdme7mP4THW/b4htlmybP6Qjo36uzY6VLeS4VRR7zGE7ww7u6FgE +C0zExWZ2ijyLjQy8f8ulQaiHL4u0YacHK2lg/zaqmFkBEn7vDFS7NNnnPgC7Q== Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:55:33 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n_Justo?= , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: rework the descriptions of rename and copy operations In-Reply-To: References: <3cbc78bb5729f304b30bf37a18d1762af553aa00.1708022441.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <2a4de8c4-4955-4891-859c-58730a41e5af@gmail.com> Message-ID: <35738a93f5cbace5b3235ce614b7afbf@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org Hello Junio, On 2024-02-19 20:49, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dragan Simic writes: > >> Regarding the branch copy and rename operations and their argument >> names, perhaps the following would be a good choice: >> >> --copy [] >> --move [] >> >> It would clearly reflect the nature of the performed operations, while >> still using "" consistently, this time to refer to the source >> branch. Using "" to select the destination name should >> be pretty much self-descriptive, if you agree. > > Awful. While I was skimming the messages without reading the > Subject line (hence without realizing that this is about improving > the existing documentation and not adding new features), I thought > that these two are about moving branch to a remote repository that > is named with . > > My advice would be to stick to vs that contrasts well. I appreciate the directness and honesty. How about using "" and "" instead, which, although more wordy, would be more consistent with "" that's used in a number of other places? Such consistency should make the users recognize the arguments better at first glance.