Re: should git command and git-command be equivalent?

"franky" [off-list ref] writes:

	I use git-init frequently and it confuses me for a long time that I
can't init a bare repository. 
	I just found I can do that by "git -bare init". However, I get used
to "git-init" and I always tried "git-init -bare" (of course failed)
	And I thought git-init and "git init" were always the same as most
newbies of git.

AFAIK, git-init and "git init" are equivalent, but as you noticed
already, the advantage of "git init" is that you can pass options to
the git command, not only to the "init" subcommand.

Also, you can use aliases (for example, I type "git st" to do "git
status") with "git whatever", but not with "git-whatever" (unless you
define the alias in your shell).

The git-whatever syntax is more or less deprecated, although I guess
it will stay forever at least for compatibility.

-- 
Matthieu

Also, you can use aliases (for example, I type "git st" to do "git
status") with "git whatever", but not with "git-whatever" (unless you
define the alias in your shell).

I try "git st", but it complains "git: 'st' is not a git-command".
Instead, I use gt-beginning abbreviation for some command frequently used
such as gtci->git-commit, gtco-->git-checkout, gtst-->git-status,
gtdi->git-diff, gtinit->git-init

So it will be wonderful if I can use "gtinit --bare"

--
Matthieu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html