Hi,
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Kristian H?gsberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 17:31 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/builtin-add.c b/builtin-add.c
> > > index 3dd4ded..e79e8f7 100644
> > > --- a/builtin-add.c
> > > +++ b/builtin-add.c
> > > @@ -153,6 +154,13 @@ static int git_add_config(const char *var, const char *value)
> > > return git_default_config(var, value);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +int interactive_add(void)
> > > +{
> > > + const char *argv[2] = { "add--interactive", NULL };
> > > +
> > > + return run_command_v_opt(argv, RUN_GIT_CMD);
> > > +}
> >
> > I'd rather have this in builtin-commit.c, since it is quite funny if
> > builtin-add.c has code to fork() and exec() itself (eventually, that
> > is) ;-)
>
> Huh... it ends up in the same binary, and interactive_add() sounds like
> it should live in builtin-add.c rather than builtin-commit.c. Either
> way, I don't care too much, but can we fix it up later?
Well, you are probably right on the former, and therefore we do not have
to do the latter.
Thanks,
Dscho
