Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Johannes Schindelin writes: > I feel a bit talked to my hand, as the only reply I was graced was a "I > think I already did". So this will be my last reply on this matter for a > while. Ah, I meant this thing:

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Hi Junio, I feel a bit talked to my hand, as the only reply I was graced was a "I think I already did". So this will be my last reply on this matter for a while. On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > IIUC, you will need "$GIT_EXEC_PATH/git-checkout" on the filesystem if > you want your

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Johannes Schindelin writes: > So I would love to hear the arguments for keeping the dashed forms of > builtins, even if the only surviving argument may be "I dig in my feet > because I always said we'd keep them". I think I already did ;-)

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Hi Junio, On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Forney writes: > > > This way, they still work even if the built-in symlinks aren't > > installed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Forney > > --- > > It looks like there was an effort to do

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Michael Forney writes: > However, I still think the patch should be applied for > self-consistency at least (git-submodule.sh currently calls both `git > rev-parse` and `git-rev-parse`). Oh, there is no question about the changes in the patch being good, as I already said.

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

On 8/7/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Just to avoid possible confusion, the above is not to say "once it > is decided, you are not allowed to bring fresh arguments to the > discussion". As Peff said [*2*] in that old discussion thread, the > circumstances may have changed over 9

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Junio C Hamano writes: > Earlier there was a more ambitious proposal to remove all "git-foo" > even from $GIT_EXEC_PATH for built-in commands, but that plan was > scuttled [*1*]. > > The changes in your patch still are good changes to make sure people > who copy & paste code

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Michael Forney writes: > This way, they still work even if the built-in symlinks aren't > installed. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Forney > --- > It looks like there was an effort to do this a number of years ago (through > `make remove-dashes`). These are

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Michael Forney writes: > Ah. Well, it looks like all but git-merge-resolve.sh run `. > git-sh-setup`, so we know that GIT_EXEC_PATH must in their PATH (and > at the front unless the script was invoked directly). > > git-merge-resolve.sh does not do this, so I suppose if the

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

On 8/5/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Forney writes: >> On 8/5/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Have you made sure that all of these scripts, before calling >>> 'git-foo' in the current code, update their PATH so that these found >>>

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Michael Forney writes: > On 8/5/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Have you made sure that all of these scripts, before calling >> 'git-foo' in the current code, update their PATH so that these found >> in the bog standard place (i.e. GIT_EXEC_PATH)? >> >> The

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Hi Junio, On Sat, 5 Aug 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Forney writes: > > > This way, they still work even if the built-in symlinks aren't > > installed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Forney > > --- > > It looks like there was an effort to do

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

On 8/5/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Have you made sure that all of these scripts, before calling > 'git-foo' in the current code, update their PATH so that these found > in the bog standard place (i.e. GIT_EXEC_PATH)? > > The reason I ask is because we can rest assured these

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Michael Forney writes: > This way, they still work even if the built-in symlinks aren't > installed. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Forney > --- > It looks like there was an effort to do this a number of years ago (through > `make remove-dashes`). These are

Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

Hi Michael, On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Michael Forney wrote: > This way, they still work even if the built-in symlinks aren't > installed. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Forney > --- > It looks like there was an effort to do this a number of years ago (through > `make

[PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts

This way, they still work even if the built-in symlinks aren't installed. Signed-off-by: Michael Forney --- It looks like there was an effort to do this a number of years ago (through `make remove-dashes`). These are just a few I noticed were still left in the .sh scripts.