Re: [PATCH] builtin-remote: better handling of multiple remote HEADs

From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2009, 02:58 UTC
Message-ID: <76718490902151858j78c0d06bxa659ffd3bd2dad01@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v7i3rglza.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

>>               &>word
>>               >&word
> Just to clarify, the above is not a recommendation for shell scripts in
> git project.

Indeed not! My use of it wasn't even intentional, I was a tcsh (cringe...) user for a long time and I only finally switched to bash about a year ago. It must've been muscle memory that made me type it, but a pox on bash for not rejecting it outright -- the bash man page claims posix'ish compliance when invoked as /bin/sh, so I don't know why it allows such syntax in its posix'ish mode.

Show 5 quoted lines

> By the say, does anybody know why bash people recommend &>word form?
>
> Neither &>word nor >&word to send both stderr and stdout to the file is
> from true Bourne, but at least the use of >&word form for this purpose is
> more familiar to people who are used to Csh.

<tongue in cheek>it is exactly because it is familiar to csh people that they recommend the opposite</tongue in cheek>

j.