Re: [PATCH/RFC] git.c: support "!!" aliases that do not move cwd

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2016, 13:23 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8DUqrsaqmrCHzzuS3Q7DXRAPkisOJbSmYPX8-AhmNUz6w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161011150118.7eb474yg5c3oe5mn@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, that's reasonable, too. So:
>> >
>> >   [alias]
>> >     d2u = "!dos2unix"
>> >
>> > acts exactly as if:
>> >
>> >   [alias "d2u"]
>> >     command = dos2unix
>> >     type = shell
>> >
>> > was specified at that point, which is easy to understand.
>>
>> It is easy to understand, and even easier to get wrong or out of sync. I
>> really liked the ease of *one* `git config` call to add new aliases. Not
>> sure that I like the need for more such calls just to add *one* alias (one
>> config call for "shell", one for "don't cd up", etc).
>
> Could we simply support alias.d2u indefinitely, and you could use
> whichever format you felt like (the shorter, more limited one if you
> wanted, or the more verbose but flexible one)?

Before this thread goes completely dead... Since there's a lot more work involved with the new alias.<name>.<property> approach (short term would be git completion support, longer term would be the ability to manipulate a config group more conveniently), I'm going with the "(properties)!command" approach. But even then a new series is not going to pop up, like, in the next two months.

I don't object the alias.<name>.<property> approach though. It's definitely a cleaner one in my opinion. It just needs people who can spend time to follow up until the end. But if someone decides to do that now, I'll drop the "(properties)!command" and try to support him/her.

-- 
Duy