Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
quoted text
> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:
> > BTW, how about renaming it in something short: git seq. There is
> > already a seq(1) in GNU coreutils, which does roughly the same (prints
> > a sequence of numbers), why not reuse the name?
> 
> Is it advantageous to use shorter but less descriptive name for this
> command?

I also think descriptive names are nice for git even if the user should
type that, since tab completion exists.
When I've started with git, I loved the fact that I could use tab
completion to learn new git commands and that often the name was
descriptive enough to get an imagination of what the tool could do (and
then read the manpage to verify...)

quoted text
> It will be a backend to am/rebase and not something the users
> will type from the command line, won't it?

Usually, but for special cases it is also nicely usable by the user
and the --status and --edit subcommands are intended to be used by the
user, too.

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html