Hi Elijah,

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes since v1:
> >>   - Fixed up commit message (move below comment to below diffstat as
> >>     originally intended)
> >>
> >> Long term I just want to make git-rebase--merge go away, so this patch
> >> will eventually be obsoleted.  But since I'm waiting for multiple
> >> topics to merge down before re-submitting that series, and since that
> >> series has some open questions as well, I figure it's worth
> >> (re-)submitting this simple fix in the mean time.
> >
> > I carry essentially the same patch in Git for Windows for a while now
> > (more than a year, to be a little preciser):
> >
> > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/42c6f1c943a
> >
> > (but it seems that I either missed one when I wrote that commit, or I
> > missed when it was introduced)
> 
> So...I helped you get your work upstream without knowing it?  :-)

Yes. Thank you.

> > There are more dashed forms in Git's code base, still, see e.g.
> >
> > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/4b3fc41b117
> > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/c47a29c373c
> >
> > I would *love* to see those go away.
> 
> Are there blockers or more known work needed to get these ready for
> submission, or is it more a case of you just haven't had time to
> submit upstream?

Time is the main problem.

I also meant to accompany those patches with a commit (that I did not
manage to write yet) that optoinally skips hard-linking the builtins
(except `git-receive-pack`, of course).

> > FWIW I had originally also "undashed" the use of `git-receive-pack`, but
> > that breaks things, as the dashed form was unfortunately baked into the
> > protocol (which is of course a design mistake even if Linus still denies
> > it).
> >
> > It would go a long way to help with platforms and packaging methods where
> > hardlinks are simply inconvenient. Because we could then finally get rid
> > of (almost) all those hardlinked builtins.
> 
> I thought they were symlinked rather than hardlinked, but yeah I've
> always found them slightly annoying.

They are hardlinked, with a newly-introduced option to symlink instead
that Ævar came up with IIRC.

Symlinks, of course, are just as impossible to handle portably in .zip
files as hardlinks.

Ciao,
Dscho