Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > Right, what I meant by "gentler" is that we continue to perform the same > behavior as the old version, alongside the warning. It's arguable here > because running "git branch -l" has _always_ been wrong. It's just wrong > in a way that happens to do what the user wants. ;) > ... >> Anyways, if you think it mustn't turn into an error now and only in the >> next stage, a suggestion follows in another thread. > > I don't think "mustn't", but I have a slight preference for what I > posted, as I think it is a little friendlier during the transition (at > the risk of somebody missing the warning, but then step 2 turns it into > a hard error anyway, so they'll certainly find out then).
Well, we could keep treating '-l' given in contexts where we have silently ignored the option and did "list" instead as before during the transition, until the very end where it becomes an explicit "list" command, no? Then there is no need to even warn against '-l' that is ignored because we are listing in the earliest step. The only usage that requires a warning then becomes '-l' used for its original meaning to create a reflog, right? That sounds gentler to me.
