Re: branch --set-upstream considered harmful

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Thomas Rast [off-list ref] wrote:

Jay Soffian wrote:

quoted

Git is inconsistent.

[...]

quoted

$ git branch --set-upstream=origin/master
$ git branch --set-upstream origin/master

Doesn't this just make it *more* confusing?

Either we document this, and the user will be left wondering why we
have two almost identical (and by the conventions of many other
programs, including git-send-email, *equivalent*) syntaxes doing,
well, something not quite entirely unlike the same.

Or we don't, and the user will eventually typo it and wonder WTF he
just did wrong.

Please take a step back and see my original message. The thing that
motivated this is that the existing invocation is, I claim,
bass-ackwards. I was merely looking for a backwards compatible
solution that doesn't introduce yet another argument. But, maybe
set-upstream hasn't been around so long that breaking it (i.e., making
it an option that requires an argument) wouldn't be a bad idea.

Enough talk, I'll send up a patch when I get some more time.

j.