Hi, On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > > On Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > > > > We could derive directories like this: > > > > > > > > > > [*] [+] > > > > > (1) git.exe -----> exec-path -----> templates > > > > > > > > > > |\----> etc/gitconfig > > > > > > > > > > \----> html docs > > > > > > > > > > or we could do it like this: > > > > > > > > > > [*] > > > > > (2) git.exe ------> exec-path > > > > > > > > > > | [+] > > > > > |\-----> templates > > > > > |\-----> etc/gitconfig > > > > > > > > > > \-----> html docs > > > > > > > > > > [*] can be overridden with --exec-path option or GIT_EXEC_PATH > > > > > env var [+} can be overridden with --template option > > > > > GIT_TEMPLATE_DIR env var > > > > > > > > > > Which one is more appropriate? > > > > > > > > IMHO 2), since the templates directory and the exec-path directory > > > > are same in nature: they are directories with additional stuff. > > > > > > With (1) you could install git.exe (or even a symlink to git on > > > Unix) somewhere in $PATH, and the rest in $anywhere and just point > > > GIT_EXEC_PATH (and only that) to $anywhere/libexec/git-core. Would > > > you think that this feature is not worth it? > > > > Correct. I think this feature is not worth it. I think all of Git > > should be installed in one place, on Windows. > > OK, I'll take that route then. It's easier to implement, I think, Heh, sometimes simpler really is better :-) Ciao, Dscho
