On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:23:50PM -0700, Perry Wagle wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote: > >> I have come to understand that "git " has quite long time been more >> robust and portable way of writing scripts. They work in both >> configurations so I'd definitely suggest doing "s/git-/git /g" for every >> script. Of course in an interactive shell everyone can use whatever they >> prefer and works at the moment. > > Sure. Its an extra fork in git command intensive scripts (and git is racey > still maybe), but *shrug*. Do you have any details on the races in Git you know about? This does not mean an extra fork, only extra exec. In case of builtin commands (which is actually a large majority by now), not even that. > Even as of March 2008 (our last sync with git before the git scripting was > completed and we got on to other things), the sample scripts and gitweb > still used the git<DASH> form. If this has been brewing for two years, > there shouldn't have been a git<DASH> form in the scripts in the standard > source *anywhere* for those two years. I agree that this is a problem. Even now, the documentation is using git- at plenty of places. Patches are welcome, I'm sure. -- 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
