Hi, On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Alp Toker wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Doing this now will save headache in the long run, avoiding mismatched > > > versions of installed utilities and dangling copies of removed or > > > renamed git commands that still appear to work. It also makes screwups > > > when packaging git or making system backups less likely. > > > > Could we please fix things, which are broken? Not things which work? > > There are maybe a dozen arguments for and against the use of symlinks here, > some of which Andreas has helpfully explained in his reply. You, on the other > hand, have managed not to mention a single one of them. Yes. That is correct. I hoped I did not need to. The consistency is a non-issue, because the Makefile rules Do The Right Thing. I happen to run git without installing it, mainly because I like to fiddle around with git. Now, if "git" does not compile for some reason, with symlinks I lose git-diff, git-ls-files, etc. And -- just maybe -- I _did_ mention a single reason to keep hard links: It works now. So why change it? > If you don't have the technical background to review a certain patch, please > don't add to the noise. It is not nice to tell a dumb man how dumb he is. Mommy! I am so sorry that I lack the technical background. Please apologize for the noise. Ciao, Dscho - : 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