{"thread":{"id":"892","subject":"do people use the 'git' command?","startedAt":"2005-06-10T18:53:32Z","lastAt":"2005-06-11T17:14:57Z","messageCount":18,"participants":["Sebastian Kuzminsky","Kay Sievers","Jon Seymour","Junio C Hamano","Russ Allbery","Tommy M. McGuire"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"4825","messageId":"E1DgodI-0003ov-Fl@highlab.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Sebastian Kuzminsky","fromEmail":"seb@highlab.com","sentAt":"2005-06-10T18:53:32Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-10T18:53:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"seb@highlab.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/f7ddd092ba3cf6999434f4d0d2f4b90fd174c2c3851617e8cffc0a2fee47becc?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"What good is the 'git' command? It's a shortcut to run the\n\"git-$FUNCTION-script\" programs, but it doesnt do the \"git-$FUNCTION\"\nprograms. It just doesnt seem worth its inode, to me. And it doesnt seem\nworth the pain to distribution maintainers (like me) to avoid the naming\nconflict with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.\n\n\nCan we drop the \"git\" program?\n\n\ndiff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile\n--- a/Makefile\n+++ b/Makefile\n@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ CC?=gcc\n AR?=ar\n INSTALL?=install\n \n-SCRIPTS=git git-apply-patch-script git-merge-one-file-script git-prune-script \\\n+SCRIPTS=git-apply-patch-script git-merge-one-file-script git-prune-script \\\n \tgit-pull-script git-tag-script git-resolve-script git-whatchanged \\\n \tgit-deltafy-script git-fetch-script git-status-script git-commit-script \\\n \tgit-log-script git-shortlog git-cvsimport-script\ndiff --git a/git b/git\ndeleted file mode 100755\n--- a/git\n+++ /dev/null\n@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@\n-#!/bin/sh\n-cmd=\"git-$1-script\"\n-shift\n-exec $cmd \"$@\"\n\n\n-- \nSebastian Kuzminsky\n"},{"id":"4826","messageId":"20050610185945.GB13102@vrfy.org","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"E1DgodI-0003ov-Fl@highlab.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Kay Sievers","fromEmail":"kay.sievers@suse.de","sentAt":"2005-06-10T18:59:45Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-10T18:59:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kay.sievers@vrfy.org","avatar":null},"body":"On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:53:32PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:\n> What good is the 'git' command? It's a shortcut to run the\n> \"git-$FUNCTION-script\" programs, but it doesnt do the \"git-$FUNCTION\"\n> programs. It just doesnt seem worth its inode, to me. And it doesnt seem\n> worth the pain to distribution maintainers (like me) to avoid the naming\n> conflict with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.\n\nWell, drop the GNU Interactive Tools instead. We've removed it from the\nSuSE packages and have a \"real\" git package now. :)\n\nKay\n"},{"id":"4827","messageId":"2cfc4032050610121129573ed4@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"E1DgodI-0003ov-Fl@highlab.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-10T19:11:29Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-10T19:11:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"Not in a program, but it does make some things slightly easier to type.\n\njon.\n"},{"id":"4848","messageId":"7vy89h4m9r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"E1DgodI-0003ov-Fl@highlab.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2005-06-11T03:15:12Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T03:15:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":">>>>> \"SK\" == Sebastian Kuzminsky writes:\n\nSK> Can we drop the \"git\" program?\n\nNo chance, especially with a patch that is not accompanied with\nnecessary changes to Documentation/tutorial.txt that already\ntells the user to type \"git commit\" and \"git log\" ;-).\n\n"},{"id":"4852","messageId":"E1DgyW0-0004PE-Ct@highlab.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"7vy89h4m9r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Sebastian Kuzminsky","fromEmail":"seb@highlab.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T05:26:40Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T05:26:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"seb@highlab.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/f7ddd092ba3cf6999434f4d0d2f4b90fd174c2c3851617e8cffc0a2fee47becc?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> >>>>> \"SK\" == Sebastian Kuzminsky writes:\n> \n> SK> Can we drop the \"git\" program?\n> \n> No chance, especially with a patch that is not accompanied with\n> necessary changes to Documentation/tutorial.txt that already\n> tells the user to type \"git commit\" and \"git log\" ;-).\n\nOf course, you're right. How about this? Against Cogito but applies\ncleanly to Linus' git:\n\n\n b/Documentation/cvs-migration.txt | 4 ++--\n b/Documentation/tutorial.txt | 6 +++---\n b/Makefile | 2 +-\n git | 4 ----\n 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)\n\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/cvs-migration.txt b/Documentation/cvs-migration.txt\n--- a/Documentation/cvs-migration.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/cvs-migration.txt\n@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@\n any more familiar with it, but make sure it is in your path. After that,\n the magic command line is\n \n-\tgit cvsimport \n+\tgit-cvsimport-script \n \n which will do exactly what you'd think it does: it will create a git\n archive of the named CVS module. The new archive will be created in a\n@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@\n \n So, something has gone wrong, and you don't know whom to blame, and\n you're an ex-CVS user and used to do \"cvs annotate\" to see who caused\n-the breakage. You're looking for the \"git annotate\", and it's just\n+the breakage. You're looking for the \"git-annotate\", and it's just\n claiming not to find such a script. You're annoyed.\n \n Yes, that's right. Core git doesn't do \"annotate\", although it's\ndiff --git a/Documentation/tutorial.txt b/Documentation/tutorial.txt\n--- a/Documentation/tutorial.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/tutorial.txt\n@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@\n for you, and starts up an editor to let you write your commit message\n yourself, so let's just use that:\n \n-\tgit commit\n+\tgit-commit-script\n \n Write whatever message you want, and all the lines that start with '#'\n will be pruned out, and the rest will be used as the commit message for\n@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@\n To see the whole history of our pitiful little git-tutorial project, you\n can do\n \n-\tgit log\n+\tgit-log-script\n \n which shows just the log messages, or if we want to see the log together\n with the associated patches use the more complex (and much more\n@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@\n history outside of the project you created.\n \n - if you want to move or duplicate a git archive, you can do so. There\n- is no \"git clone\" command: if you want to create a copy of your\n+ is no \"git-clone\" command: if you want to create a copy of your\n archive (with all the full history that went along with it), you can\n do so with a regular \"cp -a git-tutorial new-git-tutorial\".\n \ndiff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile\n--- a/Makefile\n+++ b/Makefile\n@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@\n AR?=ar\n INSTALL?=install\n \n-SCRIPTS=git git-apply-patch-script git-merge-one-file-script git-prune-script \\\n+SCRIPTS=git-apply-patch-script git-merge-one-file-script git-prune-script \\\n \tgit-pull-script git-tag-script git-resolve-script git-whatchanged \\\n \tgit-deltafy-script git-fetch-script git-status-script git-commit-script \\\n \tgit-log-script git-shortlog git-cvsimport-script\ndiff --git a/git b/git\ndeleted file mode 100755\n--- a/git\n+++ /dev/null\n@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@\n-#!/bin/sh\n-cmd=\"git-$1-script\"\n-shift\n-exec $cmd \"$@\"\n\n\n-- \nSebastian Kuzminsky\n"},{"id":"4856","messageId":"2cfc403205061023346c03a25b@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"E1DgyW0-0004PE-Ct@highlab.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T06:34:36Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T06:34:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"Sebastian,\n\nWhat is the justification for removing it?\n\nAs it stands, git serves a useful function in that it provides a\nsingle point through which access to all git-*-scripts is channeled,\nyet still allows each script to be maintained as a separate entity,\ncoherent entity.\n\njon.\n"},{"id":"4857","messageId":"2cfc4032050610233651423b5a@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"2cfc403205061023346c03a25b@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T06:36:10Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T06:36:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"I meant to say:\n> yet still allows each script to be maintained as a separate,\n> coherent entity.\n> \n\n...but then I tend towards in the randomly incoherent.\n\njon.\n"},{"id":"4858","messageId":"2cfc40320506102336332d9471@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"2cfc4032050610233651423b5a@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T06:36:55Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T06:36:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"> \n> ...but then I tend towards in the randomly incoherent.\n> \n> jon.\n> \nbollocks :-)!\n"},{"id":"4859","messageId":"7vpsutz88z.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"2cfc403205061023346c03a25b@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2005-06-11T07:02:20Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T07:02:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":">>>>> \"JS\" == Jon Seymour writes:\n\nJS> Sebastian,\nJS> What is the justification for removing it?\n\nJS> As it stands, git serves a useful function in that it provides a\nJS> single point through which access to all git-*-scripts is channeled,\nJS> yet still allows each script to be maintained as a separate entity,\nJS> coherent entity.\n\nIf I understand him correctly, Sebastian's point was that it\nchannels only to git-*-scripts without channelling to any of the\ngit-* binaries.\n\nBut the real point of \"git\" wrapper is merely to present CVS and\nSVN refugees the structure they are familiar with: a single\ncommand having a set of subcommands.\n\nIt is just an \"introductory\" thing and there is no compelling\nreason to expose the low level core GIT commands. When the\nrefugees are comfortable with how GIT does things, they will\neither use Porcelain and not touch the Plumbing, or they will\nlearn to use git-* commands themselves. In the former case, not\nhaving access to core GIT commands through \"git\" wrapper is not\nan issue. In the latter case, they will learn to type\ngit-*-script in no time, and at that point \"git\" wrapper will be\njust a short-hand; again not having access to core GIT commands\nthrough \"git\" wrapper is not an issue either.\n\nPersonally I think removal of \"git\" script is a bad idea.\n\n"},{"id":"4860","messageId":"87r7f9xsux.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"2cfc403205061023346c03a25b@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Russ Allbery","fromEmail":"rra@stanford.edu","sentAt":"2005-06-11T07:20:06Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T07:20:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rra@stanford.edu","avatar":null},"body":"Jon Seymour writes:\n\n> What is the justification for removing it?\n\nThe conflict with the existing GIT package is painful for distributions.\nPackagers try hard to avoid any file conflicts between packages, since it\nmeans that both packages cannot be used at the same time, and it turns out\nin discussion on the Debian mailing lists that people actually do use GIT.\n\nManaging the conflict between two programs that do completely different\nthings and are named the same thing is really annoying.\n\n-- \nRuss Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) \n"},{"id":"4861","messageId":"2cfc403205061100204cd43334@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"7vpsutz88z.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T07:20:46Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T07:20:46Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"On 6/11/05, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> >>>>> \"JS\" == Jon Seymour writes:\n> \n> JS> Sebastian,\n> JS> What is the justification for removing it?\n> \n> JS> As it stands, git serves a useful function in that it provides a\n> JS> single point through which access to all git-*-scripts is channeled,\n> JS> yet still allows each script to be maintained as a separate entity,\n> JS> coherent entity.\n> \n> If I understand him correctly, Sebastian's point was that it\n> channels only to git-*-scripts without channelling to any of the\n> git-* binaries.\n> \n\nWhat about generalizing it a little, so that:\n\n git word\n\ncalls:\n\n git-word-script if it exists and is executable in the path\n\nor, if not,\n\n git-word if it exists and is executable in the path.\n\nThen:\n\n git update-cache \n\nwould work as expected.\n\njon.\n"},{"id":"4862","messageId":"2cfc403205061100295ca06ed3@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"87r7f9xsux.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T07:29:17Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T07:29:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"On 6/11/05, Russ Allbery wrote:\n> Jon Seymour writes:\n> \n> > What is the justification for removing it?\n> \n> The conflict with the existing GIT package is painful for distributions.\n> Packagers try hard to avoid any file conflicts between packages, since it\n> means that both packages cannot be used at the same time, and it turns out\n> in discussion on the Debian mailing lists that people actually do use GIT.\n> \n> Managing the conflict between two programs that do completely different\n> things and are named the same thing is really annoying.\n> \n\nAh, ok...sorry didn't realise there was a naming conflict.\n\nHow about renaming:\n \"git\" to \"g.t\"\n \nAnd then explaining the idiosyncratic name in git(7).\n\njon.\n"},{"id":"4863","messageId":"7vu0k5xrfz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"2cfc403205061100204cd43334@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2005-06-11T07:50:40Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T07:50:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":">>>>> \"JS\" == Jon Seymour writes:\n\nJS> Then:\n\nJS> git update-cache \n\nJS> would work as expected.\n\nI'd rather teach the user to say git-update-cache once they\nlearned how git works.\n\nLet's stop and think. Compare lower level binaries and\ngit-*-script commands, especially paying attention to the level\nof operation of what they do. Notice the difference?\n\nThe git-*-script commands are already more or less Porcelain\nthemselves, and for that reason alone, they deserve to have\nCVS/SVN familiarity wrapper. They are designed to be usable\neven by people who are still not familiar with the GIT way of\ndoing things, and the purpose of the \"git\" wrapper is to help\nthese people try putting their toes in the water. Once they\nunderstand how these scripts work, they either care about\nPlumbing because they want to do something existing Porcelain\nlayers do not offer (in which case they would write their own\nPorcelain extensions using Plumbing commands). Or with luck,\nthey may not have to worry about Plumbing at all.\n\nI grant you that what the current \"git\" wrapper offers is not\nPorcelain enough, and to perform anything meaningful you either\nneed to use Porcelain or bare Plumbing commands yourself. But\nwhen that day comes, \"git update-cache\" is not something you\nwould want to have anyway. You would rather want to have things\nlike \"git add\" and \"git remove\", which are written in terms of\ngit-update-cache.\n\nSee what I am saying?\n\n"},{"id":"4866","messageId":"2cfc4032050611014878d54c71@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"7vu0k5xrfz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Jon Seymour","fromEmail":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T08:48:14Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T08:48:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jon.seymour@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/207131?v=4"},"body":"> I grant you that what the current \"git\" wrapper offers is not\n> Porcelain enough, and to perform anything meaningful you either\n> need to use Porcelain or bare Plumbing commands yourself. But\n> when that day comes, \"git update-cache\" is not something you\n> would want to have anyway. You would rather want to have things\n> like \"git add\" and \"git remove\", which are written in terms of\n> git-update-cache.\n> \n> See what I am saying?\n\nOk, that's fair enough. It is a sound to expose bits of plumbing to\nthe porcelain in a very slow and deliberate way as the porcelain is\npolished, rather than automatically surfacing plumbing as it gets\ncreated by over-enthusiastic plumbers.\n\nMy own learning experience has been exactly the other way around to\nthe intended use of the git script - I have been learning to use the\ncore git commands, writing my own wrappers where that is convenient\nand adopting those of others only when I completely understand what\nthey are doing - I have been learning it inside out, I guess.\n\nFor example, I only recently discovered what git-commit-script does [\nand I like it - btw - nice behaviour ]!\n\njon.\n-- \nhomepage: http://www.zeta.org.au/~jon/\nblog: http://orwelliantremors.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"4870","messageId":"7v7jh1xli5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"87r7f9xsux.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2005-06-11T09:58:58Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T09:58:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":">>>>> \"RA\" == Russ Allbery writes:\n\nRA> ... it turns out in discussion on the Debian mailing lists\nRA> that people actually do use GIT.\n\nI thought the Debian way to resolve this kind of naming conflict\nwas to rename _both_ commands involved. Sorry if this was a\nmisconception, but I think I read that somewhere in the\ndeveloper's guide.\n\n"},{"id":"4874","messageId":"20050611160135.GA6522@immutable.crsr.net","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"7vpsutz88z.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Tommy M. McGuire","fromEmail":"mcguire@crsr.net","sentAt":"2005-06-11T16:01:35Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T16:01:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mcguire@crsr.net","avatar":null},"body":"On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:02:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> But the real point of \"git\" wrapper is merely to present CVS and SVN\n> refugees the structure they are familiar with: a single command having\n> a set of subcommands.\n\nCVS and SVN refugees (like me :-)) should probably be pointed to\nporcelain. Showing them a mixture of relatively unpolished \"git\n\" and \"git-*\" commands is not likely to impress them with\nthe simplicity and elegance of the tool. I don't think the surface\nstructure of \" \" is an important factor, and\nthe first time they see a 40-hex-digit number, they'll be headed for the\nhills.\n\n> Personally I think removal of \"git\" script is a bad idea.\n\nI'd agree, for the opposite reason: the git script is a decent interface\nfor power users who don't want to use anything porcelainish. It also\nprovides a good place to hang custom functionality.\n\n-- \nTommy McGuire\n"},{"id":"4875","messageId":"87br6cn8p2.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"7v7jh1xli5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Russ Allbery","fromEmail":"rra@stanford.edu","sentAt":"2005-06-11T16:45:45Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T16:45:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rra@stanford.edu","avatar":null},"body":"Junio C Hamano writes:\n>>>>>> \"RA\" == Russ Allbery writes:\n\n> RA> ... it turns out in discussion on the Debian mailing lists\n> RA> that people actually do use GIT.\n\n> I thought the Debian way to resolve this kind of naming conflict\n> was to rename _both_ commands involved. Sorry if this was a\n> misconception, but I think I read that somewhere in the\n> developer's guide.\n\nThere are various ways in which you can deal with the problem, but then\nyou end up making that distribution different possibly than any other and\ncertainly different than the behavior people get when they build the\npackage themselves. Then users ask questions here talking about running\n\"cogito-git\" or the like and developers go \"I've never heard of that\nprogram,\" users try to use recipes off the net and the command isn't\nfound, etc.\n\nUsers of a tool like git are in a better position to figure this sort of\nthing out, but it's still rather annoying and frustrating.\n\n-- \nRuss Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) \n"},{"id":"4876","messageId":"E1Dh9ZR-0004xU-4q@highlab.com","threadId":"892","inReplyTo":"20050610185945.GB13102@vrfy.org","subject":"Re: do people use the 'git' command?","fromName":"Sebastian Kuzminsky","fromEmail":"seb@highlab.com","sentAt":"2005-06-11T17:14:57Z","receivedAt":"2005-06-11T17:14:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"seb@highlab.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/f7ddd092ba3cf6999434f4d0d2f4b90fd174c2c3851617e8cffc0a2fee47becc?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Kay Sievers wrote:\n> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:53:32PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:\n> > What good is the 'git' command? It's a shortcut to run the\n> > \"git-$FUNCTION-script\" programs, but it doesnt do the \"git-$FUNCTION\"\n> > programs. It just doesnt seem worth its inode, to me. And it doesnt seem\n> > worth the pain to distribution maintainers (like me) to avoid the naming\n> > conflict with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.\n> \n> Well, drop the GNU Interactive Tools instead. We've removed it from the\n> SuSE packages and have a \"real\" git package now. :)\n\nThat sounds nice! If only it weren't for all those pesky users...\n\n\n-- \nSebastian Kuzminsky\n"}]}