Re: Why don't we symlink libexec/git-core/* to bin/git?

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mar 30, 2018, 08:59 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1803301057150.5026@qfpub.tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8AwyJPJv4mdbZgGo4tobncKPR=sKmv93oon0CD6hwNCxw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Duy,

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > To add some interesting information to this: in MinGit (the
> > light-weight "Git for applications" we bundle to avoid adding a hefty
> > 230MB to any application that wants to bundle Git for Windows), we
> > simply ignored that old promise. We do support hooks written as Unix
> > shell scripts in MinGit, and we have not had a single report since
> > offering MinGit with v2.9.2 on July 16th, 2016, that it broke
> > anybody's scripts, so it seems that users are more sensible than our
> > promises ;-)
> 
> That's very good to hear. Perhaps we could slowly move away from
> symlinking (or even hard linking) these builtin commands (with a
> couple exception like receive-pack and stuff) ?

I would hope so. As I said before: the fact that Git started out with everything as dashed subcommands is an implementation detail that unfortunately leaked into many parts of Git's UI. We can fix this.

Show 5 quoted lines

> We don't have to do it right now but we can start announcing that we
> will drop it in maybe 2 or 3 releases. We do provide a new make target
> to recreate these links so that packagers can make a "compat" package
> that contains just these links if they want to. But by default a git
> package will have no links.

I think that makes a *ton* of sense. Let's get to work after v2.17.0? (Same for your excellent work on t/helper/test-tool)

Ciao, Dscho