Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase-i: slight internal improvements

[Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:46:29PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote to Cc git@vger.kernel.org:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote:
> 
> > Looks like *portable* shell programming is no fun :\
> 
> That is right.  That's one of the reasons why I prefer moving scripts to 
> builtins: prototyping is good and well, but when you need to put it into 
> production, where people have all kinds of weird setups 

Right.

> (just think of dash in Ubuntu!)

Well, I'm using dash as /bin/sh in Debian.
What's so weird about it?  IIRC it allows POSIX + some Berkeley extensions
and so it is far less weird as the least common demoninator of shell
portability ;-)

Hmm,
For shell portability it'd be cool to have something like a "badsh" (bad
shell) with the whole XCU Utilities as builtins without features and
warnings if features want to be used that are not supported by at least
95% of the systems.  So that scripts could be checked using badsh and
then you know, that it is portable.
I guess nobody ever wrote something like that. ;-)

> Better to use something portable, such as C.

Right.

> So would you not agree that PATCH 2/3 is rather unnecessary?

We wanted to make some upfront patches to am/rebase-i, so that, when the
git-sequencer prototype swoops in, it's easier to see, what is
taken from am and what is taken from rebase-i.
But this seems to be not so easy, so I'm currently thinking that I skip
that and concentrate on the builtin.

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F