RE: [PATCH 5/5] config: add default aliases

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On July 2, 2021 9:42 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
>Cc: 'martin' <test2@mfriebe.de>; 'Felipe Contreras' <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>; 'Andreas Schwab' <schwab@linux-m68k.org>;
>git@vger.kernel.org; 'Junio C Hamano' <gitster@pobox.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] config: add default aliases
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 02 2021, Randall S. Becker wrote:
>
>> On July 2, 2021 7:15 AM, martin wrote:
>>>On 02/07/2021 12:54, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>> martin wrote:
>>>>> IMHO it would be good to (partly) follow other vcs, and have commit
>>>>> = ci
>>>> I'm fine with leaving co out of the default aliases if it's deemed
>>>> "too controversial".
>>>>
>>>> But ci doesn't make sense. ci comes from "check in" which has no
>>>> similitude in git.
>>>svn uses it for "commit".
>>>It can be seen as CommIt.
>>>
>>>But of course other letters can be picked. I don't see an advantage in it though.
>>>Like CoMmit cm ? or CommiT ct ? None of them seems any better to me.
>>>
>>>> I don't think it's a good idea to leave "git checkout" without an
>>>> alias (it's perhaps the second or third most used command), but at
>>>> least some aliases are better than no aliases.
>>>Well, that goes back to a bigger question. And from the brief time I
>>>have been on this mail list, it appears to me there is a divide into 2 groups.
>>>
>>>If checkout is really meant to give way to switch/restore then it
>>>needs no further advertising. And then the current usage statistics are a relict from the before switch/restore time.
>>>
>>>If on the other hand checkout is not just to be kept for backward
>>>compatibility, but should always remain an equal alternative to switch/restore (i.e. it should still be taught to new user in 20 years) then
>it wants to have a default alias.
>>
>> In my opinion, default aliases are not a good path. If a command is
>> intended to be part of the git command set, then it should be a
>> builtin not an alias. Users have their own alias setups and implied
>> conflicts are just going to be confusing and end up in help, examples,
>> presentations, and so forth.
>
>So aside from the "are these aliases good idea?" discussion, would you prefer if they're implemented that we theat them the exact same
>way we do "git fsck-objects" and "git fsck"? I.e. list them twice in git.c, just pointing to the same cmd_fsck?

Without knowing the full history of why the duplication, yes. That would be my preference. If it is a git command, it should be handled like one as closely as possible. Presumably, it also would show up in git help -a. I would not expect aliases to show in help.