Kaartic Sivaraam [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
index 81bd0a7b7..948d9c9ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
@@ -195,10 +195,10 @@ start-point is either a local or remote-tracking branch.
branch.autoSetupMerge configuration variable is true.
--set-upstream::
- If specified branch does not exist yet or if `--force` has been
- given, acts exactly like `--track`. Otherwise sets up configuration
- like `--track` would when creating the branch, except that where
- branch points to is not changed.
+ As this option had confusing syntax it's no longer supported. Please use
+ --track or --set-upstream-to instead.
++
+Note: This could possibly become an alias of --set-upstream-to in the future.
I'll tweak `--track` and `--set-upstream-to` in the updated text
and remove the 'Note:' thing that does not give any useful
information to the end users while queuing (no need to resend).
Thanks.
On Friday 18 August 2017 01:28 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Kaartic Sivaraam [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
index 81bd0a7b7..948d9c9ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt
@@ -195,10 +195,10 @@ start-point is either a local or remote-tracking branch.
branch.autoSetupMerge configuration variable is true.
--set-upstream::
- If specified branch does not exist yet or if `--force` has been
- given, acts exactly like `--track`. Otherwise sets up configuration
- like `--track` would when creating the branch, except that where
- branch points to is not changed.
+ As this option had confusing syntax it's no longer supported. Please use
+ --track or --set-upstream-to instead.
++
+Note: This could possibly become an alias of --set-upstream-to in the future.
I'll tweak `--track` and `--set-upstream-to` in the updated text
and remove the 'Note:' thing that does not give any useful
information to the end users while queuing (no need to resend).
I thought I explained the reason for adding the note in one of the
previous mails.
Here's the portion of the mail,
On Monday 14 August 2017 02:20 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 09 August 2017 12:03 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>>
>> Maybe the final note could be removed? Someone who is looking up
>> --set-upstream because Git just "crashed" on them will only want to know
>> what they should do instead. Our thoughts about the future are perhaps
>> not that interesting.
>
> I thought it's better to document it to avoid people from getting
surprised
> when the options *starts working* again.
>
I hope that explains the reason.
---
Kaartic