Re: [PATCH 1/3] branch: introduce --set-upstream-to

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 1/3] branch: introduce --set-upstream-to
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:37:56 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120711013756.GA2964@burratino> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vzk77f602.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> In short, you are saying that, assuming that missing <start> and
> <branch> are given a sane default values (namely "HEAD"), the
> syntax:
>
>	git branch <branch> [<start>]
>	git branch --set-upstream-jrn [<branch>] <upstream>
>
> is easier to understand

I didn't propose allowing the branch argument to be omitted, actually.
It would be clearest, _especially_ because one argument currently
means something different, to make that error out.  Sorry for the lack
of clarity.

One more detail I didn't mention before: I think a convenience feature

	git branch --set-upstream-to <upstream>

that takes exactly one argument and means

	git branch --set-upstream HEAD <upstream>

would be fine.  Having a second command to do the same thing as
--set-upstream does (or adding new --set-other-things commands that
use this proposed convention where the value comes before the key) and
migrating awkwardly to it is what I object to.

Clearer?
Jonathan