On 02/07/2021 23:12, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I know, but it comes from CVS.
In both CVS and Subversion "commit" pushes a commit, so it can be seen
as the opposite of "checkout", which pulls a commit.
That's not the case in git.
But of course other letters can be picked. I don't see an advantage in
it though.
The advantage is that it's straightforward: co -> commit.
But it is not that different between git and svn/cvs
svn/cvs both store/restore from the repository. That happens to be on
the server.
git store/restore from the repository. That happens to be local. (the
remote is optional in git)
That, said, it is ok to break with the old patterns. Otherwise
innovation can't happen.
But, plenty of users have old habits, and those die hard.
If the new aliases should help people, then those used to other meanings
of the same alias may not think of it as that much help.
Also, git has plenty more commands than other vcs. Even if not all of
them will be aliased, people will expect different sub sets of them in
the list of those with alias.
Maybe 3 letter aliases will be less controversial
git com
git cho (checkout if needs must)
git rst restore
git swt switch
