On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the portability argument? All of the > platforms that git currently supports will handle shell scripts, > right? Git "supports" MinGW, or at least wants to. And yes, you can put bash in there, but we'd be *so* much better off if we had no shell scripting at all. Another thing I find annoying (even as a UNIX user) is that whenever I do any tracing for performance data, shell is absolutely horrid. It's *so* much nicer to do 'strace' on built-in programs that it's not even funny. It's also sad how many performance issues we've had with shell, just because even something really simple (like a few hundred refs) is just too slow for shell scripting. > Heck, git-commit is still a shell script, and that's a rather, ah, > fundamental command, isn't it? Yeah, and that's probably my pet peeve. I'd love to see a built-in "git commit" and "git fetch". The "fetch--tool" thing in next gets rid of some of the latter (and apparently the worst performance problems), but it's sad how we have a really nice builtin "push", but our "fetch" is still mostly really hairy shell-code (not just "git-fetch.sh" itself, but "git-parse-remote.sh". A gold star for whoever gets rid of any of of commit/clone/fetch or ls-remote (ls-remote isn't that big or hairy, but I mention it because it's a user of "parse-remote", so making even just ls-remote built-in is probably going to help with fetch/clone eventually). Linus - 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