On Fri, Jul 02 2021, Randall S. Becker wrote: > On July 2, 2021 7:15 AM, martin wrote: >>On 02/07/2021 12:54, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> martin wrote: >>>> IMHO it would be good to (partly) follow other vcs, and have commit = >>>> ci >>> I'm fine with leaving co out of the default aliases if it's deemed >>> "too controversial". >>> >>> But ci doesn't make sense. ci comes from "check in" which has no >>> similitude in git. >>svn uses it for "commit". >>It can be seen as CommIt. >> >>But of course other letters can be picked. I don't see an advantage in it though. >>Like CoMmit cm ? or CommiT ct ? None of them seems any better to me. >> >>> I don't think it's a good idea to leave "git checkout" without an >>> alias (it's perhaps the second or third most used command), but at >>> least some aliases are better than no aliases. >>Well, that goes back to a bigger question. And from the brief time I have been on this mail list, it appears to me there is a divide into 2 >>groups. >> >>If checkout is really meant to give way to switch/restore then it needs no further advertising. And then the current usage statistics are a >>relict from the before switch/restore time. >> >>If on the other hand checkout is not just to be kept for backward compatibility, but should always remain an equal alternative to >>switch/restore (i.e. it should still be taught to new user in 20 years) then it wants to have a default alias. > > In my opinion, default aliases are not a good path. If a command is > intended to be part of the git command set, then it should be a > builtin not an alias. Users have their own alias setups and implied > conflicts are just going to be confusing and end up in help, examples, > presentations, and so forth. So aside from the "are these aliases good idea?" discussion, would you prefer if they're implemented that we theat them the exact same way we do "git fsck-objects" and "git fsck"? I.e. list them twice in git.c, just pointing to the same cmd_fsck?
