Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> If in the future we did want better support for making user defaults
> (apart from aliases) for commands we could entertain creating a command
> like bash's 'command' which ignores any user defaults and executes a
> particular command in a vanilla mode.
>
> So if the user configured 'git am' to always use the -3 option then
> running `git command am` (or something akin to that) would just run the
> vanilla 'am' command with no options. Probably not the best idea since
> tooling would need to become aware of such a paradigm change, but its
> just a thought.
I do not think "command" is a good analogy. In practice it is used
by those who want to create a wrapper that overrides a command for
her own use, e.g. "ls () { command ls -AF "$@" }", in her .bashrc.
I suspect that it is too cumbersome for script writers to use for
the purpose of protecting their scripts from random aliases that may
change the behaviour of the commands their scripts want to rely
on---they'll be forced to sprinkle practically each and every
invocations of the basic UNIX building blocks with "command".
The saving grace for shell scripts is that the shell has good way to
tell interactive and scripted use apart, by disabling aliases and
not reading some rc files for non-interactive shells. Unfortunately
I do not think "git" has the luxury of using that "hint" as a command
invoked by these shells.
One thing we may want to consider is why we have to even worry about
scripts getting broken. It is because people script around
Porcelain, and that is because we have been too eager to improve
Porcelain while neglecting plumbing for too long, to the point that
some things are only doable with Porcelain (or doing the same with
plumbing while possible are made too cumbersome). I find it quite
disturbing that nobody brought that up as an issue that needs to be
addressed in this entire thread.