Jonathan Nieder <> writes:

> The truth is that neither one of us is right.  Both conventions
> could work, and which one is more intuitive will vary from person
> to person.

It is not just person-to-person, I think.

In short, you are saying that, assuming that missing <start> and
<branch> are given a sane default values (namely "HEAD"), the

        git branch <branch> [<start>]
        git branch --set-upstream-jrn [<branch>] <upstream>

is easier to understand, while I think

        git branch <branch> [<start>]
        git branch --set-upstream-to=<upstream> [<branch>]

so that omitted things can come uniformly at the end (of course,
unless the --option=argument in the middle is omitted, that is)
makes things more consistent.

I do not think it is productive to keep agreeing that we disagree
and continuing to talk between ourselves without waiting for others
to catch up, so I'll stop here.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to