From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move all dashed form git commands to libexecdir Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20071130011748.GC11683@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071129211409.GA16625@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071129231444.GA9616@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7veje8twt2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071130003512.GB11683@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vzlwwsgkp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071130005852.GA12224@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Schindelin , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Jan Hudec , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 30 02:18:13 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IxuWB-0005C0-4t for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:18:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763415AbXK3BRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:17:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757173AbXK3BRv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:17:51 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:1650 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762686AbXK3BRu (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:17:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 30923 invoked by uid 111); 30 Nov 2007 01:17:49 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:17:49 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:17:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:13:04PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > My point is that (2) is already implemented for every program (shell or > > no) which understands filename completion, and there is a proposal for > > taking it away. I would consider that, except I haven't see any claimed > > advantages except that the hardlinks are awful under Windows. > > Weren't enough complaints about Git having waaaaaaaaaaay too many > commands? Didn't those complaints come about often enough already? > > $ git-[tab] > Display all 135 possibilities? (y or n) Go back and read the thread to which you are responding. I am _not_ arguing against moving those commands to $(libexecdir) where no sane user will ever see them. That change addresses the issue you are talking about. I _am_ arguing against removing them entirely, for those of us who want to go to the trouble of enabling this (by putting a non-standard entry into our PATH). Because the issue you are talking about will already have been dealt with, it is no longer a compelling reason to remove the hardlinks entirely. The only reason I have heard to remove them entirely is that Windows doesn't properly support hardlinks, which I addressed in my other mails (and to which I have seen no rebuttal). -Peff