From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:50:16 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] C implementation of the 'git' program. Message-ID: <4373CEA8.1020900@op5.se> In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And the performance difference does seem to be quite noticeable too.. > Yes. I was quite astonished when I noticed first, thinking the shell kept the parsed script in cache or some such. Apparently it doesn't. > >>The location of the GIT_LIB can be obtained by running >> >> git --lib > > > I think this might be a bit ambiguous. When I see "GIT_LIB", to me it > implies traditional libraries (ie a "libgit.a" kind of thing), not the > kind of "git executable plugin" directory. > > So I'd suggest renaming "--lib" and "GIT_LIB" to be more of a "--libexec" > kind of flavor, if only to avoid that confusion. Someone said libexec was moving out (of Linux, at least), so I thought I'd better avoid that. Perhaps GIT_LIBDIR? Btw, I re-visited ye ole "git binary directory?" thread and noticed the nifty trick you did with PATH from the wrapper. I'll add that to git.c and, unless I get a better suggestion, rename GIT_LIB to GIT_LIBDIR (and git --libdir). > Even if the actual > directory ends up being /usr/lib/git-/ as in my original > suggestion, I think it's good to make it clear that it's not just some > kind of "link type" library, but more of a combination of libraries and > plugins and executables. > > But maybe that's just me? > It's not just you, but GIT_DIR was taken and I felt lazy. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231