Re: [PATCH 2/3] branch: suggest how to undo a --set-upstream when given one branch

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Carlos Martín Nieto" <cmn@elego.de>,
	git@vger.kernel.org,
	"Matthieu Moy" <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] branch: suggest how to undo a --set-upstream when given one branch
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:00:14 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120710230014.GA20873@burratino> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vliirgrun.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

>                                                           I think it
> is better to leave them emitted unconditionally to the standard
> error stream, in order to train users away from using the old option
> that has its arguments wrong (the option does not take an argument
> it should, and makes the command line to look as if it takes two
> branch arguments in the wrong order).

I thought we already discussed that that is a side-issue?

The option is a mode option for the command, like "-m", "-d", or
"--edit-description".  I genuinely don't think the order of options it
takes is counter-intuitive.  The second argument defaulting to HEAD
and the behavior of creating the branch named by the first argument
when it does not exist are quite counter-intuitive.

Transitioning to a different argument order seems like it would just
make the command more complicated.  After the transition, there are
two options to explain, and during the transition, it is easy to make
scripts with gratuitous incompatibilities that won't work on older
systems.

Where is my thinking going wrong?

Jonathan