On 7/21/2017 8:01 AM, Steven Penny wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:11:41, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: >> Hmm. I'm struggling to work out what's appropriate here. I'd be >> entirely happy splitting off the `git archimport` command to a separate >> package if there were something to gain there, but I'm very wary of >> splitting `git add -p` and friends off: I think that's liable to cause >> considerable confusion for people who use those commands and who would >> probably not expect to need a separate package for them. >> >> I'm experimenting with what this would look like now, but if you can >> find and point me at some other platform's Git distribution that also >> separates out `git-add--interactive`, so I can see how they've handled >> this situation, that would potentially be very useful. > > Good points. We might need to just leave it alone for the time being: > > 1. One person has already spoken up in this thread against it: > > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-07/msg00287.html > > 2. Debian Git still requires it: > > http://packages.debian.org/experimental/git > > 3. git-add--interactive.perl is still being worked on, 14 commits this > year: > > http://github.com/git/git/commits/master/git-add--interactive.perl > > So until they rewrite it in C, we might need to just keep things the way > they > are. I dont use it with my workflow, so its a shame to pull in Perl for > a single > file that I do not use, but I get the arguments against.
Perl is a requirement for development work using autoconf and friends anyway so is it that much of a struggle to require it for git? -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
