Junio C Hamano escreveu:
I still think in the long run you would be better off giving
separate names to Porcelains because I am sure you are going to
find the next command to "fix", you cannot suddenly change the
> "ig pull", you can dismiss all the broken git-x Porcelain-ish by
> saying "Oh, git-x user-level commands had inconsistent semantics
> and broken UI so do not use them anymore -- they are still there
> only to help old timers transition. The user level commands are
> now called ig-x and ig stands for improved git".
I think it would be good if there were different commands for
porcelains. Not because fixing the current commands is too much work,
but rather because it would clarify the structure of git. GIT is a
3-layer approach:
- index+workdir+refs over
- a DAG of commits over
- a file based SHA1 database
at first sight it is difficult to tell for each command on which layer
it operates. It would help understanding GIT a lot if each layer got
it's own command, eg.
git - sha1 content db
gic - sequences of commits
giu - UI
(Of course, these names are completely silly, but you get the idea)
I think get/put is much better than suddenly changing what pull
means and is shorter to type than x-load; I am Ok with them.
Although I think these words are tainted by SCCS, I do not think
anybody cares.
they're also tainted by darcs, but that's a minor problem, I suppose.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html