Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

Sebastian Schuberth wrote:

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.

That's most likely true, but it does not get better by postponing this
even more. I still think there's value in introducing this now, Git
still attracts new developers every day. In fact, I currently see a
leap forwarding in the Windows world towards Git, caused by some
rethinking and structural changes in some big companies.

Exactly. If one thinks in terms of years, sure, it might make sense to not
change the status quo created by years back. But think about Git in a decade or
two, at that point surely you would have wished that you had considered these
kinds of changes sooner.

Junio at some point suggested to think about features for v1.8.0 as if we were
starting from scratch[1]. I'd say if there has every been a time to add default
aliases after v1.0 it's certainly v2.0.

Our future users who might have not touched Git yet would certainly welcome
this.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/165735

-- 
Felipe Contreras