From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:58:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtin-remote: better handling of multiple remote HEADs
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.

> 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.