On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:19:38PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > In principle, yes, though one man's porcelain is another man's plumbing, > > > so determining the correct set is hard (and why bother if they are all > > > hidden from mere mortals, anyway?). > > > > That would be a good reason not to bother determining which set to > > preserve and remove them all then. > > It clearly argues for putting all in the same boat, yes (but obviously > we disagree on which boat). > > > Sure you'll miss the dashed form for, say, one week? After that your > > fingers should be retrained. > > Perhaps, although that doesn't address my other point, about non-bash > program in the world which already does filename completion (in my case, > I am specifically thinking about vim's ":r!", but surely emacs users > must have a similar issue). > > But that is just talking about the disadvantages; you can argue that > they are small, but they are clearly non-zero. More importantly, what > are the _advantages_ of removing the hardlinks (and if you haven't read > the other message I just sent you, I am talking not about putting > hardlinks into a non-PATH directory, but about removing them entirely > once they are already in that alternate directory)? If there aren't any > advantages, or they are also small, then it makes sense to keep the > hardlinks. So what you want is for the dashed hardlinks to exist _inside_ the libexec directory, even if most people won't "see" them due to that libexec directory not being in the shell path, right? If that is what you mean then I personally don't care at all. Nicolas - 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
