Hi Elijah, On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > >> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes since v1: > >> - Fixed up commit message (move below comment to below diffstat as > >> originally intended) > >> > >> Long term I just want to make git-rebase--merge go away, so this patch > >> will eventually be obsoleted. But since I'm waiting for multiple > >> topics to merge down before re-submitting that series, and since that > >> series has some open questions as well, I figure it's worth > >> (re-)submitting this simple fix in the mean time. > > > > I carry essentially the same patch in Git for Windows for a while now > > (more than a year, to be a little preciser): > > > > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/42c6f1c943a > > > > (but it seems that I either missed one when I wrote that commit, or I > > missed when it was introduced) > > So...I helped you get your work upstream without knowing it? :-) Yes. Thank you. > > There are more dashed forms in Git's code base, still, see e.g. > > > > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/4b3fc41b117 > > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/c47a29c373c > > > > I would *love* to see those go away. > > Are there blockers or more known work needed to get these ready for > submission, or is it more a case of you just haven't had time to > submit upstream? Time is the main problem. I also meant to accompany those patches with a commit (that I did not manage to write yet) that optoinally skips hard-linking the builtins (except `git-receive-pack`, of course). > > FWIW I had originally also "undashed" the use of `git-receive-pack`, but > > that breaks things, as the dashed form was unfortunately baked into the > > protocol (which is of course a design mistake even if Linus still denies > > it). > > > > It would go a long way to help with platforms and packaging methods where > > hardlinks are simply inconvenient. Because we could then finally get rid > > of (almost) all those hardlinked builtins. > > I thought they were symlinked rather than hardlinked, but yeah I've > always found them slightly annoying. They are hardlinked, with a newly-introduced option to symlink instead that Ævar came up with IIRC. Symlinks, of course, are just as impossible to handle portably in .zip files as hardlinks. Ciao, Dscho
