From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:43:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] build: add default aliases
Message-ID: <525e0b6e25aeb_81a151de7495@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy55ub1ud.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > It seems[1] that some
> > people define "ci" as "commit -a", and some people define "st" as
> > "status -s" or even "status -sb".
> 
> These option variants aside.
> 
> Just like thinking that committing must be the same as publishing,
> it is a cvs/svn induced braindamage to think that "checking in" must
> be the same as "committing".  The former is a sign of not
> understanding the "distributed", the latter "the index".
> 
> In a world with both check-in and commit as two words usable to
> denote possibly different concepts, it may make sense to say "you
> check-in the current status of the working tree files into the
> index, in order to make commits out of it later".

Yet a wide amount of users do use 'ci' to mean 'commit', so basically they are
just wrong. So you are saying they are just ignorant.

Personally I don't care if it's 'ci', or 'co', or 'cm', or 'ct'. I just
want/need a shortcut, then I can train my fingers to type that.

If you have a better alias than 'ci', then by all means, throw away your
suggestion.

Now, if you are commenting on the aliases, that would mean you are not against
the idea of aliaes per se, but more about values of those aliases. So if we
agreed on the right values, you would welcome this patch.

Is that correct?

-- 
Felipe Contreras