From: Perry Wagle <wagle@cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:57:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins
Message-ID: <59946C4A-CFA4-430E-BF90-A90A445EAB9E@cs.indiana.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20080828204418.GY10360@machine.or.cz>


On Aug 28, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Petr Baudis wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:23:50PM -0700, Perry Wagle wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
>>
>>> I have come to understand that "git " has quite long time been more
>>> robust and portable way of writing scripts. They work in both
>>> configurations so I'd definitely suggest doing "s/git-/git /g" for  
>>> every
>>> script. Of course in an interactive shell everyone can use  
>>> whatever they
>>> prefer and works at the moment.
>>
>> Sure.  Its an extra fork in git command intensive scripts (and git  
>> is racey
>> still maybe), but *shrug*.
>
> Do you have any details on the races in Git you know about?

Sorry, I should have just left that line out.  But I didn't, so:

Fall of 2007, I'd get spurious reports that the working dir was  
inconsistent when iterating through 612 commits in a script (I was  
converting from quilt/cvs to git) when it wasn't.  I got around most  
of this by sprinkling the script with git-status and git update-index  
--refresh.  My understanding was that it really was the one-second  
granularity of the timestamps on my file system doing it, so nothing  
for me to do at the time.

However, it was really bugging people, so I figured by this time  
someone had found a clever way to fix it, hence the "maybe".

I haven't tried it for a while.

> This does not mean an extra fork, only extra exec. In case of builtin
> commands (which is actually a large majority by now), not even that.

Yeah, I should have deleted that line. 8)


>> Even as of March 2008 (our last sync with git before the git  
>> scripting was
>> completed and we got on to other things), the sample scripts and  
>> gitweb
>> still used the git<DASH> form.  If this has been brewing for two  
>> years,
>> there shouldn't have been a git<DASH> form in the scripts in the  
>> standard
>> source *anywhere* for those two years.
>
> I agree that this is a problem. Even now, the documentation is using
> git- at plenty of places. Patches are welcome, I'm sure.

Heh.

-- Perry