Re: [PATCH v3] build: add default aliases

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:49:21AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> Anyway, if you are so worried about this hypothetical user not
>> noticing that 'git ci' didn't commit all the files, we could ma ci to
>> 'git commit -v' so we are being straightforward to the user as to what
>> is being committed.
>
> I do not think that is a useful suggestion, as the output of "commit -v"
> is typically too long for unsuspecting people to check carefully, and is
> redundant with the filename summary we already put in the commit
> template. And neither is shown with "-m", anyway.  I agree it's a
> minority of cases where somebody will make a bogus commit because of it,
> though.
>
> But let's take a step back for a moment. What was the goal of the patch?
> Who are we trying to help? People who already have identical aliases are
> not helped on existing boxes; they already have them. They might be
> helped on new boxes, where they will not have to copy over their custom
> aliases (but they would probably end up wanting to copy the rest of
> their config and aliases anyway).

They probably will want that, but they won't be forced to by typing
failing commands, they could do it later at their pleasure.

> People who have different aliases for
> the same terms are unaffected on existing boxes, but slightly hindered
> on new boxes as the aliases do something else.

Less hindered than in the current situation.

> People with no matching aliases now get these aliases. What do they
> expect them to do? Do they expect "commit" or "commit -a"? Do they
> expect "status" or "status -s" or "status -sb"? Are we trying for
> consistency across git installations, or consistency with similar
> aliases in systems like cvs (in which case, would that argue for "commit
> -a")? Do people who have not bothered to configure the aliases even
> care?

cvs ci = cvs commit
cvs co = cvs checkout

svn ci = svn commit
svn co = svn checkout

hg ci = hg commit
hg co = hg checkout

And somehow you think this is not natural and sensible?

git ci = git commit
git co = git checkout

I think it's as clear as day.

-- 
Felipe Contreras