Re: should git command and git-command be equivalent?

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Oct 16, 2007, 07:48 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqprzfsdo3.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20071016032240.AD2FD7E80@mail.kooxoo.com>

"franky" <yinping@kooxoo.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 	I use git-init frequently and it confuses me for a long time that I
> can't init a bare repository. 
> 	I just found I can do that by "git -bare init". However, I get used
> to "git-init" and I always tried "git-init -bare" (of course failed)
> 	And I thought git-init and "git init" were always the same as most
> newbies of git.

AFAIK, git-init and "git init" are equivalent, but as you noticed already, the advantage of "git init" is that you can pass options to the git command, not only to the "init" subcommand.

Also, you can use aliases (for example, I type "git st" to do "git status") with "git whatever", but not with "git-whatever" (unless you define the alias in your shell).

The git-whatever syntax is more or less deprecated, although I guess it will stay forever at least for compatibility.

-- 
Matthieu