From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Qingning Huo Subject: Re: [PATCH] Invoke git-repo-config directly. Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:40:03 +0000 Message-ID: <20060315204003.GA6154@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060314211022.GA12498@localhost.localdomain> <20060314224027.GB14733@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 15 21:40:27 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJcmq-0003RV-FR for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:40:07 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751360AbWCOUj7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:39:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751359AbWCOUj7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:39:59 -0500 Received: from mta08-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]:57865 "EHLO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751360AbWCOUj6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:39:58 -0500 Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060315203956.CPHD29040.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:39:56 +0000 Received: from rabbit.zoo.mayhq.org ([80.0.127.16]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with SMTP id <20060315203956.CXBT20480.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@rabbit.zoo.mayhq.org> for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:39:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 6177 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Mar 2006 20:40:03 -0000 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:07:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Qingning Huo wrote: > > We have "git-read-tree" and "git repo-config" at the same time. Are > > there any rules saying which form should be preferred? How about pick > > one form and stick to it? > > I agree that it is inconsistent as-is. So a patch to make it use the > "git-repo-config" form (the argument being that internally, we use the > full names) might be good if just for consistency. > Can these two patches be accepted then? What do others think? Qingning