# [RFC] Do we still need the git command? 3 messages from 2005-09-23 to 2005-09-23. Participants: Robert Watson, Martin Langhoff, Sebastian Kuzminsky. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/1922 ## Robert Watson, 2005-09-23 11:24 Subject: [RFC] Do we still need the git command? Message-ID: <72499e3b050923042466011c4f@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/72499e3b050923042466011c4f%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hello, The function of the git command: (1) As an alias for git-command. After the recent big tool rename, all "git command" can be replaced by "git-command". (2) Report version number. This can be solved by a git-version command. (3) List interesting commands. This can be taken care by man git(7) or TAB-TAB. Or, add a git-help command to list only interesting commands. How about get rid of the git command all together? Cons: (1) Another change of the user interface; (2) Different style from CVS/SVN. Pros: (1) Consistency. There is only one way to do it. People won't be wondering what's the difference between "git-diff" and "git diff". (2) Performance. One less shell script to parse and one less exec system call. (3) TAB completion. git-whatchanged and other long commands are easier to type with TAB completion. TAB-TAB also shows you all available commands. (4) Do not conflict with GNU Interactive Tools. Make the life of Debian people easier. What do you think? Robertoo ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-23 11:38 Subject: Re: [RFC] Do we still need the git command? Message-ID: <46a038f905092304384d79d715@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f905092304384d79d715%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <72499e3b050923042466011c4f@mail.gmail.com> ``` On 9/23/05, Robert Watson wrote: > (2) Different style from CVS/SVN. That is a plus in my book -- CVS implemented an awful UI, and everyone else followed. CVS did make use if it in that it discriminated options to the cvs utility from command options. > Pros: > (4) Do not conflict with GNU Interactive Tools. Make the life of > Debian people easier. +1! Anything to avoid yet another flamewar in debian-devel ;-) and it also shows some good manners towards a (mostly forgotten) but good project. The whole name conflict prompted me to install the GNU Interactive Tools and run it for a couple of days. Nifty little "midnight-commander" style utility. cheers, martin ``` ## Sebastian Kuzminsky, 2005-09-23 12:39 Subject: Re: [RFC] Do we still need the git command? Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/E1EImpS-0000k7-Ew%40highlab.com In-Reply-To: <46a038f905092304384d79d715@mail.gmail.com> ``` Martin Langhoff wrote: > > Pros: > > (4) Do not conflict with GNU Interactive Tools. Make the life of > > Debian people easier. > > +1! Anything to avoid yet another flamewar in debian-devel ;-) and it > also shows some good manners towards a (mostly forgotten) but good > project. The whole name conflict prompted me to install the GNU > Interactive Tools and run it for a couple of days. Nifty little > "midnight-commander" style utility. I've been talking with the Debian maintainer of GNU Interactive Tools about this. He says he's agreed with his upstream maintainer to change the name of their git. I dont know if he means they'll change their name in the upstream package or just in the Debian package. I offered to do the work for them and do an NMU, but then I havent heard from them for about 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what their status is. "Ha ha, we sure bullied them into doing it our way." -- Sebastian Kuzminsky ```