Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:
On 01/28/2012 08:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
We could error it out (i.e. you cannot name a thing that does not yet
exist), or we could consider it is a convenience feature that you can
prepare a description even before you create one, or we could even tweak
it more like "-t $name" that tries to work both on existing one (without
changing any base) or non-existing one, creating it while at it. The last
approach historically is the most error prone (we had numerous bugs in the
create_branch() helper after it started allowing an existing branch when
updating the "track" information) and I would rather not go that route if
we can avoid it.
Honestly speaking, I haven't formed an opinion.
I vote for an error. Otherwise a typo in the branch name would lead to
the description's apparent disappearance into Nirvana. An error would,
for example, have made it clear to the OP what was happening.
A more useful option might be
git branch --with-description <branchname> [<start-point>]
i.e., that a branch's description can be set at the same time as the
branch is created.
So you are saying either option 1 or 3 is preferrable, while I was saying
I would rather avoid 3 if we could avoid it. Is that the short version?
On 01/29/2012 07:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On 01/28/2012 08:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
We could error it out (i.e. you cannot name a thing that does not yet
exist), or we could consider it is a convenience feature that you can
prepare a description even before you create one, or we could even tweak
it more like "-t $name" that tries to work both on existing one (without
changing any base) or non-existing one, creating it while at it. The last
approach historically is the most error prone (we had numerous bugs in the
create_branch() helper after it started allowing an existing branch when
updating the "track" information) and I would rather not go that route if
we can avoid it.
Honestly speaking, I haven't formed an opinion.
I vote for an error. Otherwise a typo in the branch name would lead to
the description's apparent disappearance into Nirvana. An error would,
for example, have made it clear to the OP what was happening.
A more useful option might be
git branch --with-description <branchname> [<start-point>]
i.e., that a branch's description can be set at the same time as the
branch is created.
So you are saying either option 1 or 3 is preferrable, while I was saying
I would rather avoid 3 if we could avoid it. Is that the short version?
Not quite. I agree that "--add-description" should fail if the branch
already exists. But I was suggesting that there be a new *different*
option that can be used when creating a branch. "--with-description" is
probably not a great name, but I think it is a good idea that it be
spelled differently than "--add-description". Perhaps even "--message",
even though the abbreviation "-m" is precluded by the existing "-m" option.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/