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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 30, 2007, 00:58 UTC
Message-ID: <20071130005852.GA12224@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vzlwwsgkp.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 04:49:26PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I understand your point was primarily "git-a<tab>".  I think it has been
> solved for bash and zsh but not for other shells.  I think possible and
> sensible avenues are (1) punt -- cvs, svn nor hg people do not seem to
> have problem with it, or (2) implement completion in your other favorite
> shells.

My point is that (2) is already implemented for every program (shell or no) which understands filename completion, and there is a proposal for taking it away. I would consider that, except I haven't see any claimed advantages except that the hardlinks are awful under Windows.

I am proposing to have those dashed forms on platforms where it makes sense, but to treat them as second-class citizens (by putting them in $(libexecdir), which will address consistency problems.

Show 13 quoted lines

> And I think the following from Linus makes sense.
> 
> > And from a consistency standpoint, that would be a *good* thing. There are 
> > many reasons why the git-xyz format *cannot* be the "consistent" form
> > (ranging from the flags like --bare and -p to just aliases), so 
> > encouraging people to move to "git xyz" is just a good idea.
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, the man-pages need the "git-xyz" form, but on the other hand, 
> > rather than "man git-xyz", you can just do "git help xyz" instead, and now 
> > you're consistently avoiding the dash again!
> 
> but I am feeling quite feverish today so I may be missing something
> obvious.

I thought Linus' point was that moving the subcommands was sufficient for dealing with the consistency issue (i.e., all scripts would move to "git foo" and only those people who really wanted to would put the dashed forms in their path). From the same email you quoted, but just above:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I am fine with the user having to go to extra lengths to use the
> > dash forms (like adding $(libexecdir) to their path), which I think
> > should address your consistency concern.
> 
> I agree. If we actually start moving the subcommands into a separate
> directory, I suspect scripts will be fixed up soon enough. Of course
> people *can* do it by just adding the path, but more likely, we'll just
> see people start doign "git xyz" instead of "git-xyz".

But now we are arguing about what Linus meant like it is scripture. ;)

-Peff