Richard Hartmann writes:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Shells on modern distros and platforms have "echo" built-in, so this
>> patch replaces series of writes internal to the shell with a fork to
>> cat with heredoc (which often is implemented with a temporary fil
Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> Based on 98770971aef8d1cbc78876d9023d10aa25df0526 in original patch
>> series from 2013-06-10.
>
> Please don't include this. The audience for the commit message
> doesn't have that commit to compare to.
>
> If you want to preserve the original date, the way to do that
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> fwiw, I replaced my one single echo with heredoc as you
> suggested I do that. I don't mind undoing that, or I can drop it from
> this series altogether.
>
> Guidance would be appreciated. :)
Thanks for your work, and no problem.
Both Junio's and my responses were
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Shells on modern distros and platforms have "echo" built-in, so this
> patch replaces series of writes internal to the shell with a fork to
> cat with heredoc (which often is implemented with a temporary file).
True; fwiw, I replaced my on
Richard Hartmann writes:
> Spawning a new subprocess for every line printed is inefficient.
This is not a valid justification at all, is it?
Shells on modern distros and platforms have "echo" built-in, so this
patch replaces series of writes internal to the shell with a fork to
cat with hered
Hi,
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Spawning a new subprocess for every line printed is inefficient.
> Use heredoc, instead.
I think this makes sense as a code clarity, simplicity, and
internationalizability improvement, but don't like the precedent of
eliminating 'echo' for the sake of fork removal (
6 matches
Mail list logo
