Re: [PATCH] Install built-ins as symlinks

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 11, 2006, 18:02 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0607111951350.29667@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <44B3BC94.3000204@atoker.com>

Hi,

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Alp Toker wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > Doing this now will save headache in the long run, avoiding mismatched
> > > versions of installed utilities and dangling copies of removed or
> > > renamed git commands that still appear to work. It also makes screwups
> > > when packaging git or making system backups less likely.
> > 
> > Could we please fix things, which are broken? Not things which work?
> 
> There are maybe a dozen arguments for and against the use of symlinks here,
> some of which Andreas has helpfully explained in his reply. You, on the other
> hand, have managed not to mention a single one of them.

Yes. That is correct. I hoped I did not need to.

The consistency is a non-issue, because the Makefile rules Do The Right Thing.

I happen to run git without installing it, mainly because I like to fiddle around with git. Now, if "git" does not compile for some reason, with symlinks I lose git-diff, git-ls-files, etc.

And -- just maybe -- I _did_ mention a single reason to keep hard links: It works now. So why change it?

> If you don't have the technical background to review a certain patch, please
> don't add to the noise.

It is not nice to tell a dumb man how dumb he is. Mommy! I am so sorry that I lack the technical background. Please apologize for the noise.

Ciao, Dscho