Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com> writes: > Seeing that the error output when using it tells the user to "use > '--track' or '--set-upstream-to' instead," should we perhaps also > remove the --set-upstream entry entirely? That's reads: > > --set-upstream:: > As this option had confusing syntax, it is no longer supported. > Please use `--track` or `--set-upstream-to` instead. > > I don't have a strong opinion either way, but perhaps the error > message is all that's needed now? Only users who have a long memory > or are reading old documentation will call --set-upstream. I can > imagine someone coming along in a few months suggesting to remove the > remaining reference to --set-upstream from the git branch > documentation for consistency.
Perhaps. But that must happen after we can safely remove the hidden option that is there only to issue an error message. I suspect that we may not quite ready yet (the entry is there to ensure that an "branch --set-upstream $rest" coming from an existing script and trained fingers does not silently use --set-upstream-to thanks to the helpful parse-options UI).
