On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 01:31:50PM -0700, Kevin Ballard wrote: > > I am a little lukewarm on my patch if only because of the precedent it > > sets. There are a trillion options that revision.c parses that are not > > necessarily meaningful or implemented for sub-commands that piggy-back > > on its option parser. I'm not sure we want to get into manually > > detecting and disallowing each one in every caller. > > I tend to agree with your final sentiment there. But the point that > users may not realize that blame already follows is also valid. Perhaps > we should catch --follow, as in your patch, but instead of saying that > it's an unknown argument, just print out a helpful message saying blame > already follows renames (and then continue with the blame anyway, so > as to not set a precedent to abort on unknown-but-currently-accepted > flags).
Sure, that would probably make sense. Care to roll a patch with suggested wording? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
