Re: [git-users] Highlevel (but simple to implement) commands provided by default for git

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2013, 07:30 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mU1XhsjNaQdvOC=Lq5ELgMKnL7ykH8wt8o6coST48Y6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130529234335.GE28153@google.com>

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> That's detectable and could be made to error out, so it's not too bad.

Sure it's possible, but I'm arguing about whether it's worth the effort. There can be loops like a -> b -> c -> d -> e -> a. Given that nobody has even bothered to get git to print an error message when a builtin command is overridden, do you think anyone will be interested in this?

Show 5 quoted lines

> A bigger problem (in my opinion) with allowing arbitrary changes to
> the meaning of existing commands is that scripts, whether placed in
> .sh files or given as commands to run over IRC, stop working
> altogether.  It's nice to have commands like "git log" and "git am"
> mean the same thing no matter what machine I am on.

Yeah, I agree with this to a large extent. It's nice to have a minimal set of unambiguous commands for the purposes of communicating, and I'm quite happy with the present state of things.