From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 07:30:02 GMT Subject: Re: [git-users] Highlevel (but simple to implement) commands provided by default for git Message-ID: 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? > 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.