Re: About git pretty
- From
- David Tweed <david.tweed@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 23, 2008, 00:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <e1dab3980808221704h3c713e64n41adc631d7a79601@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vd4k062k2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: >> It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of >> the action to execute?
[snip]
>> If you like the idea I can work on a patch. > > FWIW, I don't like it.
It's probably much too late to change conventions given the number of deployed scripts, but one of the annoyances for me about git is that a lot of the commands/options names are based on what the code does/is written rather than relating to what a user who doesn't know or care about the inner workings expects as output. For instance, I imagine the --pretty gets its name because a pretty printing routine, called pretty_print_commit in the code, was written but the name probably doesn't make much sense to anyone who's not from a computer science background. Likewise the options --hard, --soft and --mixed to git reset lack any natural mnemonic structure. (I'm sure one can be contrived, but I doubt it'd be particularly natural.) Then there's git-fsck and gitk.
It's not remotely a big problem but it is something that I'd imagine would have been done differently with hindsight.
-- cheers, dave tweed__________________________ david.tweed@gmail.com Rm 124, School of Systems Engineering, University of Reading. "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot