There are several sample hook scripts that use `git-*' -- should these use `git *' instead?
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!There are several sample hook scripts that use `git-*' -- should these use `git *' instead?
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!Re: git-* in hook scripts
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:33:36AM -0500, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
> There are several sample hook scripts that use `git-*' -- should these > use `git *' instead?
No need to do so, `git --exec-path` is already in PATH when those scripts are invoked.
Re: git-* in hook scripts
Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:33:36AM -0500, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote: >> There are several sample hook scripts that use `git-*' -- should these >> use `git *' instead? > > No need to do so, `git --exec-path` is already in PATH when those > scripts are invoked.
We have been waiting until nobody remembers days we had dashes. It may be a good time to at least start thinking about updating them. v1.6.0 is one year and half old.
Re: git-* in hook scripts
Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:33:36AM -0500, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote: >> There are several sample hook scripts that use `git-*' -- should >> these use `git *' instead? > > No need to do so, `git --exec-path` is already in PATH when those > scripts are invoked.
To make this a little more concrete, I was thinking about the fact that `git cmd' can be different from `git-cmd' if I add a file with the second name for one of the builtin commands.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!