Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > 1. It is a bit more obvious when debugging or dumping arguments (e.g., > via GIT_TRACE), especially if new options are added after the > first. > > 2. It makes it easier for a script to work on old and new versions of > git. It sees either "amend" or "noamend" for the two obvious cases, > and if it sees no argument, then it knows that it does not know > either way (it is running on an old version of git). > > Technically one can tell the difference in shell between an empty > string and a missing argument, but it is sufficiently subtle that I > think "noamend" is a better route.
If we ever add more info, would we want to keep piling on new arguments, though? Wouldn't it a viable option to use "amend" vs not giving anything (not even an empty string), so that normal case there won't be no parameter? -- 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
