git version

> Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"?  It works
> just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
> in the git script.
> 
> The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
> prints some informational output.  The "version" subcommand fits
> nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
> 

> David Kågedal wrote:
>> Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"?  It works
>> just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
>> in the git script.
>> The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
>> prints some informational output.  The "version" subcommand fits
>> nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
>>
>
> Consistency with other (non Git) commands was why I suggested the 
> "--version" form when the discussion happened.

> A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>David Kågedal wrote:
>>>Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"?  It works
>>>just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
>>>in the git script.
>>>The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
>>>prints some informational output.  The "version" subcommand fits
>>>nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
>>>
>>Consistency with other (non Git) commands was why I suggested the 
>>"--version" form when the discussion happened.
> 
> You mean, like, "cvs version"?
> 
> Actually, cvs has both, with different semantics.