David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Jeff King wrote: > >> I don't understand how converting shell scripts to C has any impact >> whatsoever on the usage of git. The plumbing shell scripts didn't go >> away; you can still call them and they behave identically. >> >> Is there some specific change in functionality that you're lamenting? >> > > No, my criticism is against the added complexity which makes the > modification of git increasingly difficult with every new release. It's a > pretty limited use case of the entire package, I'm sure, but one of the > major advantages that I saw in git early on was the ability to tailor it > to your own personal needs very easily with some simple shell knowledge > and enough C that was required at the time. > [...] >> Is there something you used to do with git that you no longer can? Is >> there a reason you can't ignore the newer commands? > > Functionality wise, no. But in terms of being able to _customize_ my > version of git depending on how I want to use it, I've lost hope on the > whole idea. It's a shame too because it appears as though the original > vision was one of efficiency and simplicity. I would say that git-1.2.4 > is my package of preference with some slight tweaking in the branching > department. Ahah! So you miss the old script version of git commands, which you could easily modify, tailoring it to your needs, isn't it? Well, if you don't mind keeping your clone of git repository lying around somewhere, you can always resurrect old shell version of some git command, e.g. $ git cat-file -p v1.2.4:git-prune.sh > $(git --exec-path)/git-prune.sh change its name and modify as you used to do. Are there any old commands which stopped working? -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - To unsubscribe from this list: 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