| |||||||||||||
Feature removal sparks Git flamewarFeature removal sparks Git flamewarPosted Sep 4, 2008 13:24 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)Parent article: Feature removal sparks Git flamewar
After years of using Subversion (and CVS before that), I've just recently
started dipping my toes into the git user pool, and the "git foo" vs "git-foo" difference has been an unnecessary stumbling block. In fact I didn't entirely grok until this article that they are (pre-1.6.0) exactly equivalent.
Moving consistently to a single form can only help user uptake.
(Log in to post comments)
Feature removal sparks Git flamewar Posted Sep 11, 2008 15:23 UTC (Thu) by engla (guest, #47454) [Link]
When this was planned, Linus came with a simple argument himself that basically puts it down. It's not so serious deep or earth-shattering: (approximate version follows)
"We have two interfaces, git-foo and git foo, and since aliases can only be called with the second form, and flags like --no-pager or --bare can only be used with the second form, the first form can never be the only one allowed"
That, combined with a will to have one and only one way to do it (usability) basically puts it down how it's going to be.
Git needs consistency, only then "normal" people can apprieciate its complexity.
|
|||||||||||||