RE: [PATCH 5/5] config: add default aliases

> On July 2, 2021 5:02 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>; 'martin' <test2@mfriebe.de>; 'Felipe Contreras' <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>;
> >'Andreas Schwab' <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> >Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; 'Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason' <avarab@gmail.com>; 'Junio C Hamano' <gitster@pobox.com>
> >Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] config: add default aliases
> >
> >Randall S. Becker wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion, default aliases are not a good path. If a command is
> >> intended to be part of the git command set, then it should be a
> >> builtin not an alias.
> >
> >Commands cannot be overriden, aliases can.
> >
> >All SCM projects have aliases, except git. Why do you think that is?
> 
> I do not think my intent was conveyed. Default aliases made by the
> product provider, regardless of who that is, are not a good path.

> Same for git. git has aliases, but they are for the user. If the
> end-user team wants to implement a particular set of primitives for
> their environment, that's fantastic, and entirely possible in git. But
> I do not want to be constrained by someone else's primitives that are
> not core product.

> >> Users have their own alias setups and implied conflicts are just going
> >> to be confusing and end up in help, examples, presentations, and so
> >> forth.
> >
> >There's no conflict. Either you use the alias or you don't. Just like today.
> 
> Then what is the point of this? I want my aliases, not someone else's.

> >> If you want a default alias set, publish it as part of an extension
> >> set, like the bash-completion, so that the user has to take action to
> >> install them in their environment. Do not do this in the base git
> >> product by default.
> >
> >The whole point is to help users so they don't have to do extra configurations.
> 
> The whole point is that a user team should give thought to the
> functional extensions they want, as a team, which is where aliases
> come in.

> >> If I was a committer on this project, I would have to be much more
> >> convinced that there is long-term value in this series than appears on
> >> the surface.
> >
> > 1. It doesn't affect anyone negatively
> > 2. You don't have to use them if you don't want to  3. They don't affect your aliases, even if they have the same name  4. Everyone has
> >aliases  5. Every SCM in history has had aliases
> >
> >What more would you need?
> >
> >> I am sorry if I am coming across too strongly on this subject, but I
> >> do think we are overloading alias capability and intruding on a domain
> >> that should be reserved for our users, not ourselves.
> >
> >But why? We provide plenty of defaults so that users don't have to configure git in order for the program to be useful. And we will
> >continue to add more defaults.
> 
> I remain unconvinced and I found the assertion #5 somewhat specious
> and incorrect. SCCS and RCS use Shell aliases.