martin wrote: > 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) Fair point. However, I don't think git actually checks out anything. If you see the English definition [1] the CVS checkout can be thought of as checking out a book from the library; the item you check out is not part of the repository afterwards. Git doesn't do that. Either way we could leave the 'co' alias pending to see what happens with switch/restore, but my guess is that as time goes by 'checkout' will be used less and less. > 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. Right, but not all users have old habits. Some were born after Subversion was created. An important decision such as default aliases should look into the future, not the past. > 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 I don't think so. In my opinion the list of default aliases should be small, and for that two characters is fine. Cheers. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/checkout -- Felipe Contreras
