* git version
@ 2005-09-15 13:47 David Kågedal
2005-09-15 14:31 ` A Large Angry SCM
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Kågedal @ 2005-09-15 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"? It works
just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
in the git script.
The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
prints some informational output. The "version" subcommand fits
nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
--
David Kågedal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: git version
2005-09-15 13:47 git version David Kågedal
@ 2005-09-15 14:31 ` A Large Angry SCM
2005-09-15 15:22 ` David Kågedal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: A Large Angry SCM @ 2005-09-15 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Kågedal; +Cc: git
David Kågedal wrote:
> Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"? It works
> just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
> in the git script.
>
> The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
> prints some informational output. The "version" subcommand fits
> nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
>
Consistency with other (non Git) commands was why I suggested the
"--version" form when the discussion happened.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: git version
2005-09-15 14:31 ` A Large Angry SCM
@ 2005-09-15 15:22 ` David Kågedal
2005-09-15 16:02 ` A Large Angry SCM
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Kågedal @ 2005-09-15 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com> writes:
> David Kågedal wrote:
>> Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"? It works
>> just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
>> in the git script.
>> The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
>> prints some informational output. The "version" subcommand fits
>> nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
>>
>
> Consistency with other (non Git) commands was why I suggested the
> "--version" form when the discussion happened.
You mean, like, "cvs version"?
Actually, cvs has both, with different semantics.
--
David Kågedal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: git version
2005-09-15 15:22 ` David Kågedal
@ 2005-09-15 16:02 ` A Large Angry SCM
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: A Large Angry SCM @ 2005-09-15 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git Mailing List
David Kågedal wrote:
> A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>David Kågedal wrote:
>>>Why is "git --version" called so, and not "git version"? It works
>>>just like any other command, except that it is implemented internally
>>>in the git script.
>>>The "git" command takes a subcommand that does some action or simply
>>>prints some informational output. The "version" subcommand fits
>>>nicely into that, and I don't see any need to prepend "--" to it.
>>>
>>Consistency with other (non Git) commands was why I suggested the
>>"--version" form when the discussion happened.
>
> You mean, like, "cvs version"?
>
> Actually, cvs has both, with different semantics.
More along the lines of *ALL* the GNU utilities.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-09-15 16:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-09-15 13:47 git version David Kågedal
2005-09-15 14:31 ` A Large Angry SCM
2005-09-15 15:22 ` David Kågedal
2005-09-15 16:02 ` A Large Angry SCM
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).