On 15-feb-2024 23:27:59, Dragan Simic wrote:

Hello Ruben and Junio,

On 2024-02-15 22:52, Rubén Justo wrote:

quoted

On 15-feb-2024 19:42:32, Dragan Simic wrote:

quoted

Move the descriptions of the <oldbranch> and <newbranch> arguments
to the
descriptions of the branch rename and copy operations, where they
naturally
belong.

Thank you Dragan for working on this.

Thank you, and everyone else, for the reviews and suggestions.

quoted

Let me chime in just to say that maybe another terms could be considered
here;  like: "<branchname>" and "<newbranchname>" (maybe too long...) or
so.

I have no problem with the current terms, but "<branchname>" can be a
sensible choice here as it is already being used for other commands
where, and this may help overall, the consideration: "if ommited, the
current branch is considered" also applies.

Actually, I'd agree with Junio's reply that suggested using even
shorter terms.

Me too :-)

Just like "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" can safely
be shortened to "<old>" and "<new>", respectively, "<branchname>"
can also be shortened to "<name>".

It's all about the context, which is improved by moving the descriptions
of the arguments closer to the descriptions of the commands.

Your series is an improvement in that respect.  Thank you.

Though, I'd prefer that we keep "<oldbranch>" and "<newbranch>" (and
"<branchname>") for now, for the sake of consistency, and I'd get them
shortened in the future patches.

Nice!