[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: conversion to git
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: conversion to git |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:22:09 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> You don't HAVE to install all 132 git-* commands. just plain "git" is
> just hardlinked to all those different names. If you're happy to
> ditch the git file manager, you can just intall 'git' and access its
> subcommands as "git log" / "git pull" / etc. instead of "git-log" /
> "git-pull" / etc.
Hmm... well... No. Actually git is a script that turns around and
calls those git-* names. Internally the scripts call each other
through the full long git-* (e.g. git-rev-list) names. But they don't
need to be in /usr/bin and could be installed in a subdirectory
somewhere else in the filesystem. The git wrapper could even
automatically add that to PATH and then only the short git name would
cluttering up the namespace.
But... All of the man pages are available through the long names and
need to be available. Simply getting a man of 'man git' gives the
command overview and synopsis. But for the man page for 'git clone'
'man git-clone' is needed so all of the names need to be installed in
order to have man page documentation.
Bob
- Re: conversion to git, (continued)
- Re: conversion to git, Russ Allbery, 2007/09/20
- Re: conversion to git, Ralf Corsepius, 2007/09/20
- Re: conversion to git, Russ Allbery, 2007/09/20
- Re: conversion to git, Ralf Corsepius, 2007/09/21
- Re: conversion to git, Andrej Prsa, 2007/09/21
- Re: conversion to git, Russ Allbery, 2007/09/21
- Re: conversion to git, Benoit SIGOURE, 2007/09/22
- Re: conversion to git, Eric Blake, 2007/09/22
- Re: conversion to git, Eric Blake, 2007/09/20
- Re: conversion to git, Bernd Jendrissek, 2007/09/20
- Re: conversion to git,
Bob Proulx <=
- Re: conversion to git, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/09/20