Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
Dear diary, on Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:25:12AM CEST, I got a letter where Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Honestly, I think the biggest argument against the "-script" suffix is > related to man-page usage: It requires significant knowledge of the Git > project to figure out what name variant to use to find the man page. .oO(Hey, tcl has own man section as well!) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 01:57:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good. > > Why do you think it is a good example? What happens when next > time somebody rewrites it in C? Well, I was really responding to the comment about "-script" being better than ".sh", as trying ".sh", ".pl", ".php", etc, would rapidly be annoying. Honestly, I think the biggest argument against the "-script" suffix is related to man-page usage: It requires significant knowledge of the Git project to figure out what name variant to use to find the man page. (There are other problems with man pages, but I'll address those seperately now that they have occurred to me.) -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good. > > Why do you think it is a good example? What happens when next > time somebody rewrites it in C? We'll call the C version "rename.c", and the program gets to be called "git-rename", and "git rename" continues to work perfectly fine, so users won't be affected in the least. And "grep ... *.c" and "grep ... *-script" also still work right. That sounds like a good outcome to me. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
Ryan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good. Why do you think it is a good example? What happens when next time somebody rewrites it in C? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:55:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Sure, I could have called it ".sh" instead to make it look even more like > a shell script thing, but I actually think "-script" describes any > scripting language - shell, perl, you name it.. See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good. -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I have never liked the original -script name convention. It > only meant that they are implemented as scripts (as opposed to > those on the $(PROG) Makefile variable), but the end users who > end up typing their names from the command line, and to a lesser > degree the people who use them in their scripts, should not care > how they are implemented to begin with. Well, end users _don't_ care, since they are supposed to use just a simple "git xxx". The advantage with "git-xxx-script" is for git developers: at least yours truly does "grep xyz *.c" all the time, and the "grep abc *-script" is entirely analogous to that. That's where the "-script" ending comes from: it really helps pick out the stuff you can grep from (as opposed to the stuff that got compiled and isn't greppable). Sure, I could have called it ".sh" instead to make it look even more like a shell script thing, but I actually think "-script" describes any scripting language - shell, perl, you name it.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
hI, On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For consistency reasons, the names of all scripts should end in "-script". > > > > This may be a bit controversial (people might find it unnecessary). > > Subject to discussion. > > I have never liked the original -script name convention. Okay. I'm all for dropping the "-script" postfix. Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] Use "-script" postfix for scripts
Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For consistency reasons, the names of all scripts should end in "-script". > > This may be a bit controversial (people might find it unnecessary). > Subject to discussion. I have never liked the original -script name convention. It only meant that they are implemented as scripts (as opposed to those on the $(PROG) Makefile variable), but the end users who end up typing their names from the command line, and to a lesser degree the people who use them in their scripts, should not care how they are implemented to begin with. And to cope with long names and make things look a bit more familiar to CVS migrants, "git" wrapper was invented to supply the -script suffix to grok "git whatever", but just in case if something was _not_ implemented as a script, it ends up needing to try "git-whatever" in addition to "git-whatever-script". The patch alleviates the "git" problem for "git-whatchanged" and friends whose names currently do not end with -script, but it still does not help "git apply", for example. I like the general direction of making things consistent, but I wonder if we can become consistent by losing -script suffix, not adding to the ones that lack it. And as you imply, this kind of change inevitable breaks people's scripts. But I do agree with you that we should do something about it, so it may be better to break them sooner rather than later, as long as we make sure we break them just once. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
