[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cygwin-apps
Subject:    Re: [Patch] Rebase: new switch --ephemeral
From:       Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please () cygwin ! com>
Date:       2012-07-05 0:36:35
Message-ID: 20120705003635.GA9484 () ednor ! casa ! cgf ! cx
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 08:37:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul  4 20:13, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor writes:
>> > I don't think any native English speaker would use "ephemeral" as a
>> > switch name.  I'll bet a significant number of native English speakers
>> > don't even know what it means.
>> 
>> How many of those are compiling their own Cygwin packages?
>> 
>> > And, I said "something like" not "you must use exactly what I said".  I
>> > don't want to get in naming wars but, again, if you want people to
>> > actually know about and remember this option you need to use another
>> > name.
>> 
>> Fair enough.  I've looked up all the synonyms to "ephemeral" and there
>> is none that makes a good switch name, IMHO.  But I think this impasse
>> can be circumvented.  The switch "ephemeral" gets renamed to "temporary"
>> (short form "-t") and becomes a flag, like -s already is and does just
>> alter the behaviour of rebase and not asking for a file list (which
>> still needs to be given with "-T file list").  Incidentally that rather
>> elegantly resolves one objection from Corinna that the files given on
>> the command line were unaccounted for.  The invocation would then be:
>> 
>> rebase -stT file_list extra_file
>> 
>> Does this look more reasonable to you all?
>
>Not speaking for all, just for me, I like the idea to make the switch
>a simple switch without argument.  The only problem is that the -t
>option is already in use.  What about -O/--oblivious?

FWIW, obvilivious makes more sense to me.

cgf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic