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?

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

Reply via email to