From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC7EC07E9C for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17108613C2 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232291AbhGIPZu (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:25:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:65253 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232053AbhGIPZu (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:25:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C96146CD9; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:23:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=gU2/E7DCnMyhDezT3FupzpJ5/YpjoGPjH+XH7n B4kOo=; b=Fy22xFJoa/MakCTK4cPlDrXRyl8i2uSutcPlWPLRKrzrh1Ujr+a4D2 bpw1c8d9SxleiYATQVrhQxxDb+2clU0W7cFi9dH51nBjT2KclBcWPxwXh8Z+OAXy MXH/56XjBA1LC8yCWD/Psgr8UoytGPKWs/ulRgcDn8G8t//eJgnfI= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E526146CD7; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:23:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.3.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA8E6146CD5; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:23:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Stephen Manz via GitGitGadget , Git List , Stephen Manz Subject: Re: [PATCH] worktree: teach `add` to accept --reason with --lock References: Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 08:23:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Fri, 9 Jul 2021 02:11:34 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8DE324FA-E0C9-11EB-81B9-FA9E2DDBB1FC-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > "reasons". That possibility suggests that this particular > reason-giving option of `git worktree add` ought to be named > `--lock-reason`, but `git worktree add --lock --lock-reason=` > feels clunky and redundant, which is why I was wondering if `git > worktree --lock[=]` would be a better (and more convenient) > UI. Sure, but $ git worktree add --lock --reason=why-do-i-want-to-lock \ --frotz --reason=why-do-i-want-to-frotz would work just fine, no?