Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2, Size: 1045 bytes --]

David K^[.A^[Negedal <davidk@lysator.liu.se> writes:

> If the "-script" part is supposed to be hidden from me, why do I keep
> seeing it everywhere I turn?
>
>> So to users it doesn't matter, and to developers it _does_ matter (and 
>> calling them ".pl" or ".sh" or something would be _bad_), why not please 
>> the developers?
>
> I'm not suggesting we'd call them ".pl" or ".sh".

Well, I was.  Here is what I had in mind.

1. Introduce SCRIPT_SH and SCRIPT_PERL, and make
   "SCRIPTS = $(SCRIPT_SH) $(SCRIPT_PERL)" in the Makefile.
2. Install git-foo.sh as $(DEST)$(bin)/git-foo
3. Documentation to describe git-foo command is Documentation/git-foo.txt

I was planning to leave gitk source as gitk, not gitk.tcl nor
gitk.wish nor gitk.sh for now, if only to help me merging from
paurus.

Depending on how people would react to the "why would people
care what scripting language is the thing written in" comment by
Linus, I may be persuaded otherwise though, in which case 1. is
not needed, and 2. would lose '.sh', but 3. would not change.