On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 01:16:24PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:12:55AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > > I'm the reason why count-objects, ls-tree and checkout-index are > > still offered by the bash completion. And sitting here reading your > > email I realized its been _months_ since I last called checkout-index > > by hand. I still run count-objects and ls-tree very so often, but the > > average user probably doesn't use ls-tree. > > > > So yea, these probably should be removed from the completion list. > > But I can make a weak argument for keeping count-objects. > > I think this message shows the conflict in setting up such a list. We > want the command set to be as tiny as possible to help new users find > their way. But we want the command set to be useful to git power users. > > I wonder if there should be multiple sets of commands for completion, > with a minimal set enabled by default, and a "power user" set that > exposes extra commands. I dunno. Maybe that is overengineering. I don't > even use the bash completion at all. The problem is not caused by the number of commands, but by their complexity. I need completion because it's hard to type their very long names without making mistakes (not counting the long options). "git am" is fine with me, but "git format-patch" is quite boring to type. It's also interesting to note that short names are currently in place for less commonly used commands : git-rm, git-mv, git-gc. Willy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
