On: Legit. Git for humans

[alexchamberlain]

I'd have to agree. Git is very Unix - simple commands do one simple thing - it doesn't need complicating by opaque commands that do lots of things at once.

[MatthewPhillips → alexchamberlain]

But Git commands map to what is going on in the code, which isn't necessary. I think an effort to make a true CLI for git should be encouraged. For example:

  git push

Pushes everything, in every branch.

  git pull

Whoops, won't let me do that without providing a branch.

[alexk7 → MatthewPhillips]

There are discussions about changing the push default behavior.

http://lwn.net/Articles/487131/

[alexchamberlain → MatthewPhillips]

Erm... push behaviour can be changed using config and will be changed in the next release to only push the current branch.

My git pull pulls the current branch...

[MatthewPhillips → alexchamberlain]

> Erm... push behaviour can be changed using config

Right, and isn't that what legit is providing here? Sane defaults. I'm in favor.

[jcoder → MatthewPhillips]

The point is, the best way to improve suboptimal behavior in an open source project is to engage with the project and advocate changing the behavior. If there is truly a defect, or a behavior that so needlessly violates the principle of least surprise, then fix it at the project level.

[alexchamberlain → jcoder]

Completely agree... I don't understand changing an existing CLI... why not suggest improvements to the actual project?

The only way this could be justified is as a concept build to pass back to the community.