Re: [PATCH v3] build: add default aliases

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 24, 2013, 06:41 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3ee_SmY=NOeMW31D4E01-Ft9qY5wa9VhRQWrY0fo7S=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130924061830.GB6114@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:49:21AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> Anyway, if you are so worried about this hypothetical user not
>> noticing that 'git ci' didn't commit all the files, we could ma ci to
>> 'git commit -v' so we are being straightforward to the user as to what
>> is being committed.
>
> I do not think that is a useful suggestion, as the output of "commit -v"
> is typically too long for unsuspecting people to check carefully, and is
> redundant with the filename summary we already put in the commit
> template. And neither is shown with "-m", anyway.  I agree it's a
> minority of cases where somebody will make a bogus commit because of it,
> though.
>
> But let's take a step back for a moment. What was the goal of the patch?
> Who are we trying to help? People who already have identical aliases are
> not helped on existing boxes; they already have them. They might be
> helped on new boxes, where they will not have to copy over their custom
> aliases (but they would probably end up wanting to copy the rest of
> their config and aliases anyway).

They probably will want that, but they won't be forced to by typing failing commands, they could do it later at their pleasure.

> People who have different aliases for
> the same terms are unaffected on existing boxes, but slightly hindered
> on new boxes as the aliases do something else.

Less hindered than in the current situation.

Show 7 quoted lines

> People with no matching aliases now get these aliases. What do they
> expect them to do? Do they expect "commit" or "commit -a"? Do they
> expect "status" or "status -s" or "status -sb"? Are we trying for
> consistency across git installations, or consistency with similar
> aliases in systems like cvs (in which case, would that argue for "commit
> -a")? Do people who have not bothered to configure the aliases even
> care?

cvs ci = cvs commit cvs co = cvs checkout

svn ci = svn commit svn co = svn checkout

hg ci = hg commit hg co = hg checkout

And somehow you think this is not natural and sensible?

git ci = git commit git co = git checkout

I think it's as clear as day.

-- 
Felipe Contreras