On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> No thanks. IMHO, this is already too much code for too little gain. > > Thanks for bringing a bit of sanity. You have already said it "In which > way is git different from other tools that execvp other programs?" earlier > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/171755/focus=171848) Well, one tool that it differs from is bash (although bash uses execve directly I think). Personally I think this whole thing essentially a lack of information from execv*. Also, I do agree that the code required for this is quite more than I would have liked, but it will reduce confusion when things go wrong. It's when things go wrong that people get annoyed. Annoyed people look for greener grass. If that bit of annoyance could be reduced, why not go the extra mile for that little bit of gain? Being as it is, I'll stop working on this. If this was pretty much going to be /dev/null'ed from the beginning, I'd rather have heard it after my first patches. In any case, it has been an education so far. Thanks for that. And if there's any issue you think I could start tackling, please don't hesitate to cc me. Cheers, Frans -- 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