From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECAA81F9E0 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726815AbgD2UjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:39:06 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53707 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726481AbgD2UjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:39:06 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B504473C2; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:39:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Z8AP8blT6WfSaghIf4xF0kMabu0=; b=xK4yQm TdDlssQkSJgLu3zOAFs6Ls4WMg1b/JbuCP9SySMpBvucEcDHu5eYPKF1b383PU2L gaglEgZUcBMVhaWmhhgZ1+nzHhMElWa2RLABGT3STdjMa/Lr00Wq4cn0TCuKkIE5 Nx/DqfJxOQ13JiLN+ECHA4AH6F7D1FdQ/mRII= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=totRC3HjUVDIo+SPpkQm6vnS4RPnQHrP R5gY9UyoOstjEa9yx+HAtcANTSfSdy4UMcYHY5zEhfBy7lldp5/PYNutaWTJ3bHA BaMuiqcorSdOwG/i20vRwJZsZVFlMw/K67oDaY+bqbj4AOaFNJnM5ImxwW/ym2/I uJPRYLMriQc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3360E473C1; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:39:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3DF1473BF; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:39:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Sergey Organov , Ivan Tham , git@vger.kernel.org, "brian m . carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: add '-' to delete previous branch References: <20200429130133.520981-1-pickfire@riseup.net> <877dxyo1k8.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <20200429190013.GG83442@syl.local> <87v9likr5a.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <20200429195745.GC3920@syl.local> <20200429203508.GA7899@syl.local> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:39:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200429203508.GA7899@syl.local> (Taylor Blau's message of "Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:35:08 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7755E596-8A59-11EA-AFDA-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > OK, I could sympathize with that as well. I still think that my > suggestion from earlier about documenting the fact that 'git branch -D' > already understands '@{-N}' as a separate first patch is valid. No question about that ;-) > If I were the author, I'd cut that as a first patch, and discard the > remainder if it sounds like we don't want to go with 'git branch -D -', > which is fine by me. (I don't really care either way, and I can > understand the arguments in both directions). Yup, that would be what I would do, too, whether I wanted "-d -" or not.