On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:

> 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?

Sadly, no. I'm not in a position to contribute to GPL code anymore, based
on my current job (I'd have to jump through some hoops to get the ok
to expose myself to that potential legal liability).

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