Re: git binary directory?

From: Yaacov Akiba Slama <ya@slamail.org>
Date: Nov 5, 2005, 21:43 UTC
Message-ID: <436D276F.7010302@slamail.org>
In-Reply-To: <436D2269.6090605@slamail.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> So I'd really suggest that while the "git-<tab><tab>" thing is perhaps 
> useful, we'd actually be better off with an /usr/lib/git directory 
> where we put the git executables by default. And just put "git" into 
> /usr/bin.
>
> That way, people who _want_ to use "git-<tab><tab>" can just add the 
> git binary directory to their path and directly access all of them. 
> And others can just use the plain "git" interface.
>
> That would mean that I'd have to learn to use "git whatchanged" and 
> "git diff-tree" instead of "git-whatchanged" and "git-diff-tree", but 
> hey, it's why we have that "git" script in the first place.
>
> What do people think?

I agree with you. I have 3268 entries in /usr/bin and git commands account for 3.3% of this number which is a lot.

In addition custom tab completion can be quite easily added to bash and zsh.

If you indeed put only git in /usr/bin, a good idea would be perhaps to implement (svn does that for instance) : "git help" to have a simple list of command (this is almost already there), and "git help <command>" which can give the same result as "man git-<command>" because it's not clear from "man git" that one needs to see the man pages of the commands listed in "Porcelain-ish command".

--yas