Randall S. Becker wrote: > 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. Commands cannot be overriden, aliases can. All SCM projects have aliases, except git. Why do you think that is? > 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. There's no conflict. Either you use the alias or you don't. Just like today. > If you want a default alias set, publish it as part of an extension > set, like the bash-completion, so that the user has to take action to > install them in their environment. Do not do this in the base git > product by default. The whole point is to help users so they don't have to do extra configurations. Today git is pretty much unbearable without a configuration. Default aliases would help quell some of that pain. > If I was a committer on this project, I would have to be much more > convinced that there is long-term value in this series than appears on > the surface. 1. It doesn't affect anyone negatively 2. You don't have to use them if you don't want to 3. They don't affect your aliases, even if they have the same name 4. Everyone has aliases 5. Every SCM in history has had aliases What more would you need? > I am sorry if I am coming across too strongly on this subject, but I > do think we are overloading alias capability and intruding on a domain > that should be reserved for our users, not ourselves. But why? We provide plenty of defaults so that users don't have to configure git in order for the program to be useful. And we will continue to add more defaults. -- Felipe Contreras
