> By the way, I'm not sure how the 'git' script is supposed to be used.
> I know that if there is a git-foo-script file in your path, you can
> run it as 'git foo'. But what about e.g. git-init-db? You can run
> that as 'git init-db' today. And 'git read-cache' should work too.
> And 'git ls-fil
Horst von Brand wrote:
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
git-update-cache for instance?
I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.
Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in practice. Too
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What's the upside?
>>
>> I can point to one downside: "git". That script right now is simple. If
>> you rewrite git-cvsimport-script from shell to perl, it looks the same to
>> git.
>
> What I've been w
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the upside?
>
> I can point to one downside: "git". That script right now is simple. If
> you rewrite git-cvsimport-script from shell to perl, it looks the same to
> git.
What I've been working on was to:
* have git-cvsimport.perl in the so
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The point is, naming things as being "scripts" is useful. Grep is just an
> > example. Naming things as being ".pl" or ".sh" is _not_ useful.
>
> Sorry, but why not?
What's the upside?
I can point t
On 9/6/05, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That wasn't the _point_.
Agreed - sorry I should have qualified my comment.
I agree with having useful extensions for ease of development. And I
agree with the suggestion of installing them with stripped extensions
-- to extend the abstractio
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is, naming things as being "scripts" is useful. Grep is just an
> example. Naming things as being ".pl" or ".sh" is _not_ useful.
Sorry, but why not?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>
> Grep knows how to ignore binary files.
That wasn't the _point_.
The point is, naming things as being "scripts" is useful. Grep is just an
example. Naming things as being ".pl" or ".sh" is _not_ useful.
So with grep you can use -I, but what about
On 9/6/05, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grepping for strings.
>
> For example, when renaming a binary, the sane way to check that you fixed
> all users right now is
>
> grep old-binary-name *.c *.h *-scripts
>
> and you catch all users.
Grep knows how to ignore binary fil
David K.ANegedal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 pl
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... and I don't see _any_ point to naming
> by what _kind_ of interpreter you use. Why would _anybody_ care whether
> something is written in perl vs shell?
One possibility that comes to mind is to again help developers
who use an editor that is synt
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
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
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Horst von Brand wrote:
>> > I had the same opinion. The counter-argument people raised when
>> > this topic came up on the list was that it would help grepping
>> > in the source tree.
>>
>> Grepping for what?
>
> Grepping for stri
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Horst von Brand wrote:
> > I had the same opinion. The counter-argument people raised when
> > this topic came up on the list was that it would help grepping
> > in the source tree.
>
> Grepping for what?
Grepping for strings.
For example, when renaming a binary, the sane
Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I had the same opinion. The counter-argument people raised when
>> this topic came up on the list was that it would help grepping
>> in the source tree.
>
> Grepping for what?
I am only a messenger for the
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'.
> >>
> >>In earlier discussions some people seem to like the
> >>distinction between *-script and others; I did not
> >>particularly like it, but I am th
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
*.pl is what is usually used for perl scripts.
My recollection may be faulty, but '*.pl' was meant to be used
for older Perl libraries back in perl4 days, and the standalone
scripts are to be named '*.perl' but many people mad
Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *.pl is what is usually used for perl scripts.
My recollection may be faulty, but '*.pl' was meant to be used
for older Perl libraries back in perl4 days, and the standalone
scripts are to be named '*.perl' but many people made the
mistake of naming th
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'.
In earlier discussions some people seem to like the
distinction between *-script and others; I did not
particularly like it, but I am throwing this in for
discussion.
I for one
Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'.
>>
>>In earlier discussions some people seem to like the
>>distinction between *-script and others; I did not
>>particularly like it, but I am throwing this in for
>>discussion.
>
> I for one th
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I said:
>
> > I'll draw up a strawman tonight unless somebody else
> > does it first.
[...]
> 3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'.
>
>In earlier discussions some people seem to like the
>distinction between *-script and others; I di
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they do.
>
> OK. then they are git-http-fetch and friends. How about
> git-ssh-push? The counterpart of fetch-pack/clone-pack is
> called upload-pack, so wo
Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, except that git-convert-cache and git-fsck-cache actually have
> nothing to do this the index by any name, and should probably be
> git-convert-objects and git-fsck-objects.
You are right.
> I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they d
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I said:
>
> > I'll draw up a strawman tonight unless somebody else
> > does it first.
>
> 1. Say 'index' when you are tempted to say 'cache'.
>
> git-checkout-cache git-checkout-index
> git-convert-cache git-convert-
I said:
> I'll draw up a strawman tonight unless somebody else
> does it first.
1. Say 'index' when you are tempted to say 'cache'.
git-checkout-cache git-checkout-index
git-convert-cache git-convert-index
git-diff-cache git-diff-index
Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > git-update-cache for instance?
>>
>> Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in
>> practice. Too many of us have already got our fin
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > git-update-cache for instance?
> > I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.
>
> Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in
> practice. Too many of us have already
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > git-update-cache for instance?
> > I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.
> Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in
> practice. Too many of us have already got ou
Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> git-update-cache for instance?
> I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.
Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in
practice. Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to
type cache, and the glossary is
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming?
I personally do not see it coming. Any particular one you have
in mind?
git-update-cache for instance?
I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to
Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming?
I personally do not see it coming. Any particular one you have
in mind?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M
So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming?
While it would cause me and my team some personal effort (we have
a special-purpose porcelain), it would be welcome to have a lexicon
that is sane and consistent, and in tune with all the documentation.
Others may feel different
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > > [...]
> > Okay for "hash".
>
> I think we only need at most two names for this, so this is more a matter
> of fixing old usage than documenti
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > object name::
> > > Synonym for SHA1.
> >
> > Have we killed the use of the third term "hash" for this? I'd say that
> > "object n
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay for "hash". What is the consensus on "object name" being more
> > standard than "SHA1"?
>
> The tutorial uses the term "object name", so does README
> (implicitly, by saying "All objects
Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay for "hash". What is the consensus on "object name" being more
> standard than "SHA1"?
The tutorial uses the term "object name", so does README
(implicitly, by saying "All objects are named by their content,
which is approximated by the SHA1
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > SHA1::
> > A 20-byte sequence (or 41-byte file containing the hex
> > representation and a newline). It is calculated from the
> > contents of an object by the Secure Hash Algorith
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> long, long time. Here?s my first stab at the glossary, attached the
> alphabetically sorted, asciidoc marked up txt file (Comments?
> Suggestions? Pizzas?):
>
> object::
> The unit of storage in GIT. It is uniquely identified by
>
Hi,
long, long time. Here´s my first stab at the glossary, attached the
alphabetically sorted, asciidoc marked up txt file (Comments?
Suggestions? Pizzas?):
object::
The unit of storage in GIT. It is uniquely identified by
the SHA1 of its contents. Consequently, an object can no
40 matches
Mail list logo
