Miles Bader <> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <> writes:
>> is easier to understand, while I think
>>      git branch <branch> [<start>]
>>         git branch --set-upstream-to=<upstream> [<branch>]
> Isn't one problem with this that even if a "--set-upstream-to" option
> exists, inevitably some [and I'm guessing, many] people will not be
> aware of it (after all, nobody reads documentation more than they have
> to), and will attempt to use "--set-upstream" with an argument
> (that's the natural thing to do, after all) -- which may succeed with
> weird results ...?

In the part you quoted in the message you are responding to in the
subthread between Jonathan and, I was expressing doubts about his
"upon seeing a single argument for operations that need two pieces
of info, sometimes the first one is assumed to be missing and gets
the default, some other times the second one is assumed to be
missing and gets the default" design, which I felt would be
unnecessarily confusing.

The issue of possible confusion you raised is real, was discussed in
the main thread of discussion of the earlier round, and has been
addressed in this round of the patch series, I think, with warnings
and/or advises.
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