From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Perry Wagle Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:57:59 -0700 Message-ID: <59946C4A-CFA4-430E-BF90-A90A445EAB9E@cs.indiana.edu> References: <7vd4jukphm.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080828090421.GQ10360@machine.or.cz> <18219E52-E56F-43D9-B28D-0CC74E225CC5@cs.indiana.edu> <7BC51BEC-E230-48C5-BD3E-2CECE3C7FC98@cs.indiana.edu> <20080828195211.GA3545@mithlond.arda.local> <4B9831F7-3CB8-49CB-A1DB-111481A271FE@cs.indiana.edu> <20080828204418.GY10360@machine.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Teemu Likonen , Linus Torvalds , Kristian H??gsberg , Matthias Kestenholz , Steven Rostedt , Jeff King , Ulrich Windl , Andi Kleen , Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , David Woodhouse , git@vger.kernel.org To: Petr Baudis X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 28 23:01:27 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KYocQ-0003Cz-HJ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:01:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757492AbYH1VAM (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:00:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757802AbYH1VAL (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:00:11 -0400 Received: from newman.cs.indiana.edu ([129.79.247.4]:53965 "EHLO newman.cs.indiana.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756956AbYH1VAJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:00:09 -0400 Received: from smtp.cs.indiana.edu (smtp.cs.indiana.edu [129.79.247.7]) by newman.cs.indiana.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/IUCS_2.87) with ESMTP id m7SKw6XZ003506; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:58:07 -0400 Received: from dhcp-2.metabiology.com (pool-96-253-170-5.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [96.253.170.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by rage.cs.indiana.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/IUCS_SMTP_Alternate_Port_1.4) with ESMTP id m7SKw03p008856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:58:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080828204418.GY10360@machine.or.cz> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Aug 28, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Petr Baudis wrote: > 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? Sorry, I should have just left that line out. But I didn't, so: Fall of 2007, I'd get spurious reports that the working dir was inconsistent when iterating through 612 commits in a script (I was converting from quilt/cvs to git) when it wasn't. I got around most of this by sprinkling the script with git-status and git update-index --refresh. My understanding was that it really was the one-second granularity of the timestamps on my file system doing it, so nothing for me to do at the time. However, it was really bugging people, so I figured by this time someone had found a clever way to fix it, hence the "maybe". I haven't tried it for a while. > 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. Yeah, I should have deleted that line. 8) >> 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 form. If this has been brewing for two >> years, >> there shouldn't have been a git 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. Heh. -- Perry