Jakub Narebski wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Wouldn't "git ggrep" (from git-aware grep) or "git bgrep" (from built-in
grep), similar to the egrep and fgrep from the grep package?
Yes, I understand, but I just don't like using 'grip'. And it would be nice
to have some convention for further not-ready-yet built-in replacements for
script versions of commands, for example adding letter 'b' as 'built-in' at
the beginning of command name: 'bgrep', 'bdiff'. Or use postfix 'n' or
'-ng' to denote transitionary not-ready-yet new version of command:
'grepn', 'diffn' or 'grep-ng', 'diff-ng'.
Forcing the user to remember what's implemented as built-ins is not a
good idea. It was for that exact reason the "git-<command>-script" were
all renamed "git-<command>" once upon a time.
"git grip" work just fine for me, since it's only intended for testing
and performance improvements so far. I also think it's clearer for
end-users looking for a grep command if they're not faced with
fgrep/egrep/ggrep/bgrep alongside plain "grep".
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html