On July 2, 2021 9:42 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: 'martin' <test2@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'Felipe Contreras' <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>; 'Andreas Schwab' <schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; >git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Junio C Hamano' <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] config: add default aliases > > >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? Without knowing the full history of why the duplication, yes. That would be my preference. If it is a git command, it should be handled like one as closely as possible. Presumably, it also would show up in git help -a. I would not expect aliases to show in help.
