Re: Git BOF notes
- From
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
- Date
- Jul 21, 2006, 14:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20060721144249.GO13776@pasky.or.cz>
- In-Reply-To
- <20060721131824.GC32585@fieldses.org>
Dear diary, on Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 03:18:24PM CEST, I got a letter where "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> said that...
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:01:55AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > (i) We should somehow separate the lowlevel Git commands from the > > highlevel ones meant for user consumption. There's too many of them > > and it is confusing for the users. Similarity with BitKeeper was pointed > > out (and I refrained from mentioning GNU Arch). > > The man page already attempts to make this distinction in its command > list, though arguably the order is wrong (it lists the low-level > commands first) and you could argue about some of the choices (git > init-db may be "low level", but it's something everyone probably wants > to see). > > "git help" already has an abbreviated list. What else could we do?
Perhaps (while coordinating with the porcelains, of course) we should start moving the lowlevel tools to the libexec directory and keep only the end-user tools around.
Yes, there is some blury stuff, but I think it's rather a sign that something is missing in the core Git porcelain. git-init-db is lowlevel and I think in 99% of the cases you are going to do an initial commit right after anyway, so you might as well just get git-init which does it for you (something akin cg-init ;). I think we still tell users to use git-update-index to mark resolved conflicts, but all the Git people at OLS were too afraid to even _mention_ the index to the users at all; shouldn't we have git-resolved instead?
Oh well, except that people are gonna run git-resolve instead all the time. Why do we still _have_ that one?
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise. Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam