Re: [PATCH] Move all dashed form git commands to libexecdir

[Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Jeff King wrote:

> 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.

So what you want is for the dashed hardlinks to exist _inside_ the 
libexec directory, even if most people won't "see" them due to that 
libexec directory not being in the shell path, right?

If that is what you mean then I personally don't care at all.


Nicolas