Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 24, 2014, 07:19 UTC
Message-ID: <5358bae8ab550_1f7b143d31037@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <CAHYYfeFKW93GH+6-ssR5L_uoo3OL2-LFAsj-4+8uEmL0BhT3ow@mail.gmail.com>

James Denholm wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >This is a false dichotomy; there aren't just two kinds
> > of Git users.
> >
> > There is such a category of Git users who are not
> > fresh-out-of-the-boat, yet not power users either.
> 
> Oh, I didn't mean to suggest a dichotomy of any kind. However these are the
> two groups (I suggest) are the most immediately relevant - one calls for
> change, and the other would be negatively impacted.

Nobody would be negatively impacted. Who would be impacted negatively by having default aliases?

> > Unless the aliases are already there by default.
> 
> Others, with knowledge far beyond mine, have pointed out the problems
> with this.

And I have showed they are not problems.

> I'd suggest the argument most relevant to my own statements is how it impacts
> the learning proccess, and makes it more likely that users will learn aliases
> _as_ commands, which of course is incorrect and potentially harmful.

That is an assumption. Why would a user think 'co' is a command?

Show 7 quoted lines

> > And if default aliases were such a bad idea, why do most (all?) version
> > control systems out there have them?
> 
> I'm so tempted just to sass and say that it's because they aren't git...
> 
> But on a more serious note, a feature (any feature) being in one vcs doesn't
> mean, by default, that it's right for git.

How is Git different from any other version control systems?

Commands are commands.

> The status quo may be a mistake on the part of it's followers.

Yes, it might, but it's not.

> (And, historically, has been many times - for an transculturally-acceptable
> example, consider the rejection of Galileo's astronomical research by the
> Vatican of the time.)

Yes, I'm perfecly aware that everybody _can_ be wrong, that doesn't mean they _are_.

> Just because Mercurial et. all does something doesn't mean git needs to, or
> even should. It needs objective consideration, not to just be ushered through
> on the basis of tradition.

Again, this is a red herring. Nobody argued that Git should do this because others are doing it.

You failed to answer the question, so I'm asking it again:

If default aliases were such a bad idea, why do most (all?) version control systems out there have them?

Your answer seems to be along the lines of: they made a mistake and they are all wrong. Is it?

But, surely if it's a mistake on their part you should be able to find people affected by this horrible error. This would validate the arguments that others have put forward; if we do X we will have problem Y. Well, other projects have done X, do they have problem Y?

-- 
Felipe Contreras