On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:38 AM Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/20 7:14 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > > On 5/26/20 3:11 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >> On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >>>> On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote: > >>>>> On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >>>>>> I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed > >>>>>> with 'gcc-'? This seems to go against that. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are right, but this one is so handy ;) > >>>>> What name do you suggest? > >>>> > >>>> gcc-ci? > >>> > >>> What the abbreviation stands for? > >> > >> CheckIn > >> > >> For those who come from the SVN days where ci was the standard > >> abbreviation for committing :-) > > > > Ah, I see. Anyway, I prefer the original name even though it violates > > the naming policy. > > > > Let other express their preferences (Jason?). > gcc-ci suggests that it should always be used for commits to gcc, which is not my intent; the new alias is only used when you want to ask for a new ChangeLog skeleton to be added. gcc-ci-log would be better if you want something short; I'd prefer gcc-commit-mklog, and let people define their own shorter aliases as desired. > Personally I struggle to keep track of all the different command > and function names (e.g., in GCC) and what they do. I find > consistent names and behaviors helpful (and conversely, > inconsistencies trip me up time and time again). So if/since there > is a convention to prefix gcc Git commands with gcc- I would prefer > to use it consistently, even if shorter names might seem nicer or > more convenient. We don't check things in so often that typing > a few extra characters should be a burden. > And people can always create their own aliases. > By the way, it's nice that the existing gcc- aliases are documented > on https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html. I would suggest to add this > one there as well. > Definitely. Jason
