Re: Git's inconsistent command line options

> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> wrote:
>> From: "Jacob Keller" <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But notice that I said "if you really want to".  I personally think
>>>> it is a road to madness.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. I don't believe in command line API here. I think we'd need a
>>> better solution.
>>>
>>> My gut says: Live with the warts on old commands and try to make
>>> people use command words for new commands.
>>> --
>>
>> Agreed. However Graeme's original question also said "I can supply a more
>> extensive list if needed", and "I still have to reference the help to remind
>> me of what parameter to use in certain situation", which suggests that one
>> option is to capture that list within some part of the documentation,
>> especially if Graeme already has an easy to read layout.
>>
>> If it could be part of the documenation, where should it go - gitcli or
>> perhaps it's own guide (`git help -g` and friends)?
>>
>
> I hope to spend some time investigating this in the near future.
> Personally I feel that command names make more sense than options
> since they are essentially non-options, and it helps separate
> logically related but non-equivalent operations more easily.
>
> The confusion that results from git-checkout, and git-branch has
> caught more than a few new people at $dayjob.
>
> Regards,
> Jake