Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

["David Kågedal" <davidk@lysator.liu.se>]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
>
>> What's the upside?
>>
>> I can point to one downside: "git". That script right now is simple. If 
>> you rewrite git-cvsimport-script from shell to perl, it looks the same to 
>> git. 
>
> What I've been working on was to:
>
>  * have git-cvsimport.perl in the source
>
>  * install it as $(bindir)/git-cvsimport

That was what I suggested too, although I don't really care if it's
called .perl or -script in the source.

By the way, I'm not sure how the 'git' script is supposed to be used.
I know that if there is a git-foo-script file in your path, you can
run it as 'git foo'.  But what about e.g. git-init-db?  You can run
that as 'git init-db' today.  And 'git read-cache' should work too.
And 'git ls-files', and 'git rev-parse', and 'git merge-one-file' and
'git sh-setup-script' in decreasing order of usefulness...

But running 'git' without arguments only list the -script commands as
available.

-- 
David Kågedal