Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

David Kastrup wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

This is especially true for commands which might not be used as often
-- e.g., "rebase", and for commands where the meaning of "git commit"
without any argument is qualitatively different from what "ci" (for
checkin) means in most other source management systems.

ci means commit in Mercurial.

Does it mean "commit the staging area"?

It means "hg commit".

quoted

It would help when the user starts to think "Geez, I seem to be typing
`git checkout` an awful lot, I wonder if there's a shortcut", which if
the .gitconfigs out there are any indication, it happens all the time.

Actually, it happens very rarely if you are talking about _real_
gitconfigs deployed by projects as compared to _sample_ gitconfigs
demonstrating Git features for _personal_ rather than project-wide use.

There's no such thing as gitconfigs deployed by projects, and if there were
they would be irrelevant.

We are talking about *people* using Git's command line interface, and people
have *personal* configs, that's it.

And it's only those configs we have access to, and the only sources of
information we have to make a guess if users ask the question "Geez, I seem to
be typing `git checkout` an awful lot, I wonder if there's a shortcut".

quoted

quoted

And for a command like "rebase" where the user can very easily shoot
themselves in the foot to begin with, I'd actually suggest that it's
a _good_ thing that they have to type it out in full.

And now you contradict yourself; you actually want to make life harder
for new users, on purpose.

Life's hardness is not proportional to the number of typed characters

It is. Why do you think people set aliases? To make their life harder?

Anyway, if you disagree change one of your frequently used passwords to a
chapter of The Lord of the Rings for a day. Let's see if you still think that.

-- 
Felipe Contreras