Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

From: James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 24, 2014, 06:06 UTC
Message-ID: <CAHYYfeFKW93GH+6-ssR5L_uoo3OL2-LFAsj-4+8uEmL0BhT3ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53588f448d817_59ed83d3084e@nysa.notmuch>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>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.

> Unless the aliases are already there by default.

Others, with knowledge far beyond mine, have pointed out the problems with this. 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.

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

(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.)

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.

-- James Denholm