Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, David Kågedal wrote: >> >> But to the users (like myself), there's no point in naming it by >> whether it's a script or a binary. > > So? There's no downside. > > To you, as a user, you never see the "-script" ending anyway. You'd never > type it out, or you're already doing something wrong.
Then I'm doing something wrong. And I'm pretty sure others are too. If I'm not supposed to see the "-script" ending, then don't install it in my $PATH. Until someone (possibly myself) writes some zsh completion code to handle git sub command, I will continue to hit TAB and see all those names. Furthermore, the man page for "git clone" is called "git-clone-script(1)". And the "-script" suffix appears inside the documentation in various places. I see it in howtos and log messages. And the git-merge-one-file-script script is supposed to be used in a way where I have to supply the long name. Etc. If the "-script" part is supposed to be hidden from me, why do I keep seeing it everywhere I turn? > So to users it doesn't matter, and to developers it _does_ matter (and > calling them ".pl" or ".sh" or something would be _bad_), why not please > the developers? I'm not suggesting we'd call them ".pl" or ".sh". -- David Kågedal - 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
