News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What comes after Git. Parent comment

Re:What comes after Git by bryanrasmussen on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @04:30AM (#31985785)
if instead of checkout you had a bunch of separate functions you think you would remember those?

Someone could probably make an argument that commands should be overloaded even more - clone, pull, and checkout could be merged for most of their common operations - as an example. Note: I am not necessarily for this but I'm not necessarily against it either.

agree --patch is weird.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What comes after Git by anonymous_sorry on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @05:36AM (#31986191)
> if instead of checkout you had a bunch of separate functions you think you would remember those?

It does (switch/restore) and I do.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What comes after Git by afiori on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @06:02AM (#31986337)
If clone push and pull were overloaded into a

   git sync --from <local or remote ref, or .> --target <local or remote ref, or .>
It would not change much.

The problematic kind of overloading are like how

    git push origin master
and

    git push origin master:master
push master to origin while

    git push origin :master
deletes master from origin.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What comes after Git by vvillena on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @10:02AM (#31988297)
Check out pacman, the Arch Linux package manager, to see an extreme case of command overloading. It probably makes lots of sense from a conceptual point of view, but for users that simply use a very small subset of the tool, it can get a bit messy.
[ Parent | on HN ]