Re: Usability question

[Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>]

Rob Barrett <barrettboy@gmail.com> writes:

> My questions:
> 1. What is the distinction that makes the 10% special enough to get
> non-prefixed options?

Prefixed and non-prefixed is what people usually call respectively
"options" and "subcommands". To me, the distinction is needed:

Options are flags that modify the behavior of a git command. For
example, "git reset" and "git reset --hard" do something similar, but
"git svn rebase" and "git svn dcommit" do something really, totally
different. It's not about doing the same thing in a different way,
it's really about different actions.

Subcommands are closer to commands than they are to options. The
reason to group several subcommands into one command is mostly to
reduce the number of commands, but for example, it could have been
decided to replace "git svn dcommit" by "git svn-dcommit" (but then
"git help" would have been really really scarry).

> 2. Is it worthwhile? Wouldn't it be better if to shoot for more
> consistency / less complexity?

Well, if you want to get rid of subcommands, why not get rid of
commands, too?

git --commit
git --status
git --svn --rebase

I find the distinction between commands, subcommands and options
really helpfull.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/