On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:13:04PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > My point is that (2) is already implemented for every program (shell or > > no) which understands filename completion, and there is a proposal for > > taking it away. I would consider that, except I haven't see any claimed > > advantages except that the hardlinks are awful under Windows. > > Weren't enough complaints about Git having waaaaaaaaaaay too many > commands? Didn't those complaints come about often enough already? > > $ git-[tab] > Display all 135 possibilities? (y or n) Go back and read the thread to which you are responding. I am _not_ arguing against moving those commands to $(libexecdir) where no sane user will ever see them. That change addresses the issue you are talking about. I _am_ arguing against removing them entirely, for those of us who want to go to the trouble of enabling this (by putting a non-standard entry into our PATH). Because the issue you are talking about will already have been dealt with, it is no longer a compelling reason to remove the hardlinks entirely. The only reason I have heard to remove them entirely is that Windows doesn't properly support hardlinks, which I addressed in my other mails (and to which I have seen no rebuttal). -Peff - 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
