A core feature of Git is the ability to create aliases. This effectively allows you to customize Git's command set. As a developer, of course, you're going to want to do this.
However, lately I've come across numerous claims stating aliasing core commands is the Right Way to use Git. Unfortunately, even Pro Git aliases core Git commands in their examples.
Regardless, this is not the Right Way.
Why? Two reasons: obfuscation and speed.
While aliases give us freedom, there's no convention for aliasing core commands. So they're all subjective.
While these commands exhibit our personal flare, they've lost their meaning. Sure
git up sounds cool and might impress your coworkers. But they have no idea what it does and it isn't available on their setup.
The primary motivation for aliasing core commands is speed. Oh, the need for speed. Anything to save a few keystrokes. But how many keystrokes are you really saving by aliasing core Git comamnds?
Let's compare some common aliases against command completion.
With the exception of
git status, command completion tied or beat aliases. In addition, command completion also completes references and options. So command completion saves keystrokes across all commands, not just aliases.
In the end, aliases are a useful feature. But stop aliasing core Git commands. Instead, use command completion as a clearer and often faster alternative.
Reserve aliases for Git commands you run frequently and require options. For example, here are my current aliases. Two alias long
git log commands and the others compliment Git's command set with additional custom commands.
There seem to be confusion about scope. My suggestion is not to create Git aliases for core Git commands. This includes things like
git ci as shorthands for
git commit respectively. It does not include Git aliases in general or system aliases.
Want to master Git? Getting Git contains over 60 videos covering Git commands as well as scenarios you'll encounter using Git every day.
Top comments (43)
I'm quite sorry, but the point of having my own personal development machine is to set it up the way I like :)
So what? I'll tell them if they ask nicely :) I don't see how setting up shortcuts, aliases or magical key combinations is anyone's business but mine...
Unless it's on a common server of course, in which case I tend to agree.
Okay, run your tests against my most used ones:
git commit --all
git commit -am "message"
:D I know what they stand for, don't care if others do, and don't care if they aren't available on a computer that's not mine.
gst? That's far too many characters!
I have a bash function
gitunless you pass no arguments, then it aliases
Single characters FTW! :D
Kinda cool ^^
I have "g." for "git status ." but may switch to "g" :D
Dude, had the same idea! dev.to/sendra/git-faster-with-mingit :D
haha! that's great xD
You're catching a lot of "I do what I want" in the comments, but I fully support this idea. I expect everyone to be proficient with bare bones git, be able to share scripts, shell history and the likes.
As for those who don't want to type more characters, this two-liner will set you up for tab autocompletion with git... if you're on a Mac with
brewinstalled. But there's probably a similar trick for Linux (or it might even be installed by default).
You can even use tab completion for branch names now. 🙌
This article isn't stating "don't use git aliases in scripts" it's stating subjectively that completion is better for you.
Even if you alias everything under the sun, in scripts you want to share or work regardless of changes to aliases you can still use the original commands.
Ha. That's a good way to put it. Thanks for reading the full article.
I'm amazed no one has yet confessed to major sin:
So we shouldn't alias git commands because someone else might need to use my computer and not immediately know what my aliases are bound to?
Maybe you don't mean it that way, but all this comes off as needlessly puritanical.
You also don't remove the original command when doing an alias, so if somebody were to sit in my computer (which no one does) he'd just have to type
git statusinstead of
Why should I care if others can't use my git configuration un my machine. aliases should make working more comfortable for me not for others. If i want to explain how they work i can introduce them to my set of alias or use the default ones.
Under the same logic we should all use the same editor with no configurations, since "somebody could use my computer at some point" the article is useless.
“Stop doing whatever you want” could be a good title for this post.
Git aliases are for PERSONAL use. Why shouldn't I do if I feel more confortable with those?
I know there are some reasons why not to use them, but these 2 are just not valid, you are contradicting yourself.
"git st" has the same meaning as the "status", because they are synomyms--aliases.
What should the coworkers have to do with my setup?
git com+tab contains more keys strokes than "git ci".
What's next, do not setup custom key bindings to my IDE? 😱 (both your reasons can be applied to custom key bindings). It doesn't improve speed (press the same no of keys) and obfuscate (is not the same as default value).
You're right, I don't setup custom key bindings in my IDE. 😂
Why would you make the case to tell people to stop customizing their environment to their liking?
It's not like an alias removes the original command.
Gws, gcf, gca, glg, gri all mean something to me that many might not follow but they improve my workflow.
If someone sits at my machine they can still use normal git commands.
I would take the stance that everyone should experiment with what works for them and opt to stray from the beaten path in their working environment. Everyone has their own approach so this article is entirely subjective.
I've messed around with Bash, and created a specific "Git shortcuts" bash file that essentially omits the "git" command.
This won't work in all setups, but it allows me to shorten commands while retaining readability, and tab-completion works still because it's used as a CLI:
branch -c someBranch=>
git branch someBranch && git checkout someBranch
clone -p someGitURI=>
git clone $(pbpaste)
pushup remoteName workingBranch=>
git push -u remoteName workingBranch
etc. Wondering what everyone's take on this method is.
You can use
git checkout -bto create new branch and checkout to it.
My only issue with your post is that in the end, you didn't really show a compelling reason not to use aliases. Is there something you left out, maybe?
Hey Jason, thanks for writing the article and doing the tests with characters used etc. I'll bear it in mind, especially when it comes to working in shared environments and helping others to become familiar with git. I'd always assumed that adding some short aliases did save time, and muscle memory will probably mean I do keep using them, but thanks nonetheless.
I've not written anything for dev.to yet, so not sure what sort of article editing controls there are, but if it's possible... how about changing the title to a 'suggestion' rather than a command, and completely avoid using any reference to the right way? I think you've accidentally undermined yourself by appearing to be dogmatic, which is a shame.
Aliases are a point of customization and as such personal. I think this has caused some readers to react to keywords like right way and miss the focus of this post. While the title was indeed for effect, the post, when read closely, presents the argument for being clear while also providing an alternative.
I think aliases are a personal choice, someone prefers to use it, and someone prefers to use tab completion.
When I switched from subversion to git, at the beginning I missed the short commands, but finally I started using tab completion.
As author said, aliases are indisposable to run commands with a specific options.
For my daily work, I don't use aliases, but I use "custom" commands for my daily workflow:
git branch-create $JIRA_ISSUEcreates new branch from the right branch with the right name according our rules
git branch-sync <--rebase>Merges or rebases branch from the base branch(it's deducted by the branch name)
git prsimple ncurses interface to open a pull requests, you don't need to specify the base branch again
git branch-clean <--remote>Cleans local/remote branches which has been merged into master
We have more, but I think these ones may be interesting :D
Yeah I agree with a lot of the responses I'm seeing. Why should it matter to my coworkers what I do on my laptop? If we're pairing and there's something they don't understand, I can always explain it. And they probably are going to be able to guess what "git co" and "git st" mean, especially if they see the output. As long as I'm not putting the short versions in documentation, I don't see a problem. You could probably extrapolate this to a lot of shell aliases too and I'd have the same opinion.
Also I've been typing "git st" and "got co" for years now. It would not make me more efficient to remove those and have to tab complete them. I've been in shells without my aliases and believe me, it does not save me keystrokes.
Sorry, but I don't use aliases to impress anybody. I just like having shortcuts. And it definitely minimizes the chances of errors. A two character command is easier to get right than say a 12 character command.