Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 28, 2008, 15:21 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0808281719130.24820@pacific.mpi-cbg.de.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20080826173512.GS10544@machine.or.cz>

Hi,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 06:29:03PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> >   - it means git on Windows has the same interface
> > 
> > (Arguably the latter point ought to be "forces Unix users to use the
> > same interface as on Windows", but the git-foo forms have been
> > deprecated on all platforms for a while.  Making Unix and Windows the
> > same seems a worthwhile goal, though presumably it's irrelevant for
> > linux kernel people.)
> 
> I actually checked, and my msysgit installation does hardlinking (or at
> least pretends to do, and ls -l shows high linkcounts). And somewhat
> amusingly, it doesn't appear that 1.6.0 will be released for Windows
> anytime soon, though that's of course not relevant from long term
> perspective.

That is correct. Even more amusingly, it cannot be released ATM because of a breakage _caused_ by the move into libexec: on Windows, we _want_ to be as relocatable as possible, i.e. not having an _absolute_ exec path compiled in. So we use a relative one. And that's the rub: from bin/ (for "git") and from libexec/git/ (for almost all others), there is no single relative path to etc/.

Funny, eh? Dscho