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 1AADE646 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 03:32:13 +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=1708054337; cv=none; b=WMTWE4IstNgrxbfWG4iptuy+/3QsFWNDPWwuYFSf5042bgwCMSytGrV7fLvbjve1yV9E60s0ee2/xLGwA3JhU8wGSJypzALqylHmkiBjGyIaVFke1AswAOyW/GMZyMrq6CsTiLWyEgE51rLhWRc2oPXaxX3j3aVcEqfdlbLzWNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708054337; c=relaxed/simple; bh=T9H1e0cW0Ipo4aHaPI6RL49mf/aSmguTwe7oF2AuKio=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=fU5J63NMGA36z3zPlqwi3XgvPRVQ2io5A07q51GX7cTbGMnsFSMo+Dzpu/9vGxt6ngod2/49tcbED6jwjGpTECQAOCfXaXdF4ONV8MQIXduCWWKs1Mb75aueEYEEl1GjiPOqsho0etiJJzrUafkboQF7hrOk4dMAHYh9fd/Qngg= 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=pVfIZ+f8; 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="pVfIZ+f8" 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=1708054331; 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=J2F0MQ1cF5XyLLMuVHVKlnNybUJQQUczk4Dj/OXDi9o=; b=pVfIZ+f8Jz5lRbnEx2SVoMXRHJ0HhLVTtvyzQvQHTJmCGgOV+RkpxxF/jTndtL6RAURkBJ tUwXcNJPG2GIDmJYqJUWMcAci/jmSUXK4FMujdMUmip32oQy6p9v4YISDMzKVQwHcbi0fB pp7uBgCc4mgDHIpFJFyCidfjNwPdZwIXm0wkrE6uIYVkVB7ZKoI6nQlB+lqsTrZmgBCZ1y gKG7YvNCSABAuNr8AU87fuNADoOZ3lw8uTbIcd9BB1X+8bCyQSD65dC/NduIHSIWUCBruQ W2thqf74yV+5UzCsvSk1kPQQ/L0quW1pHOY1BVQ5j71V824HidgVMKkdL+8/hQ== Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 04:32:10 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n_Justo?= Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: rework the descriptions of rename and copy operations In-Reply-To: <2a4de8c4-4955-4891-859c-58730a41e5af@gmail.com> References: <3cbc78bb5729f304b30bf37a18d1762af553aa00.1708022441.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <2a4de8c4-4955-4891-859c-58730a41e5af@gmail.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-02-16 00:34, Rubén Justo wrote: > On 15-feb-2024 14:13:31, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Rubén Justo writes: >>> On 15-feb-2024 19:42:32, Dragan Simic wrote: >>> Let me chime in just to say that maybe another terms could be >>> considered >>> here; like: "" and "" (maybe too long...) >>> or >>> so. >>> >>> I have no problem with the current terms, but "" 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, we should go in the opposite direction. When the use of >> names are localized in a narrower context, they can be shortened >> without losing clarity. > > I did not mean to have longer terms, sorry for that. > > I was thinking more in the synopsis: > > 'git branch' (--set-upstream-to= | -u ) > [] > 'git branch' --unset-upstream [] > 'git branch' (-m | -M) [] > 'git branch' (-c | -C) [] > 'git branch' (-d | -D) [-r] ... > 'git branch' --edit-description [] > > To have more uniformity in the terms, which can be beneficial to the > user. Here's what I think the example from above should eventually look like: 'git branch' (--set-upstream-to= | -u ) [] 'git branch' --unset-upstream [] 'git branch' (-m | -M) [] 'git branch' (-c | -C) [] 'git branch' (-d | -D) [-r] ... 'git branch' --edit-description [] Though, it's something to be left for future patches, which will move more argument descriptions to the respective command descriptions. > We don't say that "--edit-description" defaults to the current branch; > It is assumed. Perhaps we can take advantage of that assumption in > -m|-c too. We don't say that yet, :) because the description of the command for editing branch descriptions is detached from the description of its arguments. The plan is to move all of them together. > Of course, there is no need (perhaps counterproductive) to say "branch" > if the context makes it clear it is referring to a branch.