Subject: Re: git sequencer prototype

From: Alex Riesen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:13:21 +0200

Junio C Hamano, Sat, Jul 05, 2008 00:09:41 +0200:
> Alex Riesen <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > Stephan Beyer, Tue, Jul 01, 2008 04:38:30 +0200:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> here is the patchset for the git-sequencer prototype, documentation,
> >> test suite and a first git-am and git-rebase-i migration.
> >> Indeed, monster patches. ;)
> >
> > 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?  It will be a backend to am/rebase and not something the users
> will type from the command line, won't it?

There is not a huge lot of possible meanings of "seq" in the given
context. Somehow I find it hard to believe someone will be confused by
a backend command with a short name "seq" (seq-uence-something?)

It'll make the lines shorter, less need to wrap them.

BTW, what does "am" (git am) mean?