Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

Sebastian Schuberth [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Every argument against default aliases was basically refuted, yet my
patches went nowhere. And the users still expect these aliases.

+1 about having default aliases in general, and I'd also add these:

I think it might be OK to implement them as the lowest priority
fallback alias, so that '[alias] co = "user's definition"' anywhere
in the various configuration locations will override it.  I am a bit
hesitant about adding start-up overhead, though.  Also I am not sure
if people can agree with (1) a broadly wide selection of aliases and
(2) the actual definitions for them (I am OK with "co === checkout"
myself, but I'd rather not to even think about my Git wasting cycles
parsing extra configuration items to support "br === branch" at all,
for example).

If we squat on "co" and other short-and-sweet friends by adding them
as built-in aliases (i.e by adding them to git.c:commands[]), the
only effect would be to annoy people who have them defined somewhat
slightly differently, so that won't fly well.

If we don't standardize this now people will come up with their own
definitions [1] [2] (and many others if you just search GitHub) which
are again likely to differ (slightly), hindering interoperability.

I am afraid that that ship has sailed long time ago, though.