Re: git-branch -m interprets first argument differently when two are supplied

Johannes Sixt wrote:

Brandon Casey schrieb:

quoted

The first non-option argument is interpreted differently depending on
whether one argument or two arguments have been supplied.

	git-branch -m [<oldbranch>] <newbranch>

Has anyone considered whether this is inconsistent with how other
commands operate?

Funny, I fell into this trap just yesterday and accidentally renamed
my master branch to something else. IMO git-branch -m should take two
arguments. Full stop.

Actually, I think the single argument case is unambiguous and I would
rather not give it up.

It's the two argument case that both expects its arguments in a different
order than other commands _and_ is dangerous in the case of -M.

I was thinking that -M should print a message describing what it is going
to do, and prompt the user for confirmation. A new option could be added
to suppress this behavior like -q. Or we could reuse -f, but see below.

While I'm looking at git-branch, I think the capital forms are unnecessary.
We have a -f (force) option, so I think it makes more sense to deprecate
the captital forms(not remove them), and interpret -f along with -m or -d to
provide the same functionality. Again, with the behavior described above
for confirmation with something like -q.

Oh, and I wouldn't mind switching the arguments around after we have the
confirmation implemented. :)

-brandon