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 20:25:36 -0500 Message-ID: <20071130012536.GA12615@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> <20071130010055.GB12224@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 02:26:09 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 1Ixudk-0007JT-J7 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:26:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933384AbXK3BZl (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:25:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933223AbXK3BZl (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:25:41 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:1790 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933001AbXK3BZk (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:25:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 31016 invoked by uid 111); 30 Nov 2007 01:25:38 -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 20:25:38 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:25:36 -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 08:19:38PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > In principle, yes, though one man's porcelain is another man's plumbing, > > so determining the correct set is hard (and why bother if they are all > > hidden from mere mortals, anyway?). > > That would be a good reason not to bother determining which set to > preserve and remove them all then. It clearly argues for putting all in the same boat, yes (but obviously we disagree on which boat). > Sure you'll miss the dashed form for, say, one week? After that your > fingers should be retrained. Perhaps, although that doesn't address my other point, about non-bash program in the world which already does filename completion (in my case, I am specifically thinking about vim's ":r!", but surely emacs users must have a similar issue). But that is just talking about the disadvantages; you can argue that they are small, but they are clearly non-zero. More importantly, what are the _advantages_ of removing the hardlinks (and if you haven't read the other message I just sent you, I am talking not about putting hardlinks into a non-PATH directory, but about removing them entirely once they are already in that alternate directory)? If there aren't any advantages, or they are also small, then it makes sense to keep the hardlinks. -Peff