From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Include a git-push example for creating a remote branch Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:42:08 -0700 Message-ID: <7vps0vadxr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070906044408.GA588@spearce.org> <20070906050127.GS18160@spearce.org> <7v8x7ke260.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <874pi7dcba.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Miles Bader" , "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Carl Worth X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 06 19:42:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ITLN1-0000gA-H9 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:42:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754388AbXIFRmS (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:42:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752363AbXIFRmS (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:42:18 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:55939 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751064AbXIFRmR (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:42:17 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684B612DBE1; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:42:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <874pi7dcba.wl%cworth@cworth.org> (Carl Worth's message of "Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:48:57 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Carl Worth writes: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:30:31 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> It is just nobody felt strong enough reason to sugarcoat the >> normalized syntax with something like: >> >> git push --create remote foo v1.2.0 > > Couldn't we just use an initial + to indicate this as well? Unfortunately, no, because + has already been taken to mean something completely different.