On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 02:20:20PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Tommi Virtanen <tv@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 01:36:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Of course it would. Does using /usr/libexec/git-core/git-shell work? > > > > It would, but do you really want people using that? > > I do not have particular preference either way. What people wanted was to > have smaller number of git-foo on $PATH, and especially as "git-shell" is > not something people would be typing from their command line, so I dunno. Can we agree that direct calls of libexec stuff should never be part of the "official" interface (i.e. not workarounds for deprecated usage)? Considering that calling the git-shell executable directly is the _only_ sensible way of using this interface, it should follow that it has to be in /usr/bin, no matter if users type this command or not. (I'm actually a little confused that you bring up the "typing from their command line" aspect at all, since that never seemed to be relevant criterium. People type the commit command all the time, yet we do not install git-commit. Typing the three git-* commands we do install - git-receive-pack, git-upload-pack and git-upload-archive - should be on the other hand pretty rare occasion. About gitk, well, 'git k' would just look silly, I guess. ;-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis The next generation of interesting software will be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC. -- Bill Gates -- 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
