We've decided to go for the individual scripts directly. :-)
Just to clarify - individual scripts or $0 name handling?
I kinda like one big script - also means we don't need to 'install' it
to get access to Cogito.pm...
Unfortunately, you didn't send the attachments inline, so I can't
comment on
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:04:16PM CEST, I got a letter
where David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
I don't love the 'require gitadd.pl' but it's a gradual start...
I hate it, for one. ;-)
Cogito.pm seems to be a good place for the library stuff.
Sounds sensible.
Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:40:54AM CEST, I got a letter
where Steven Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
Here is perhaps a better way to provide detailed help for each
git command. A command.help file for each command can be
written in the style of a man page.
I
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:35:15PM CEST, I got a letter
where Steven Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
Example:
..snip a perfect-looking example..
-
Speaking of 'git diff', I ran that before applying the following patch,
and got a diff starting thusly:
---
Steven Cole wrote:
Speaking of I think, the name cogito was suggested for the
SCM layer, but IIRC Linus suggested staying with just plain git. Petr
suggested tig, perhaps because it looks at git from another point of view.
I haven't read _all_ the mails - I thought cogito was kinda selected and
Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:42:26AM CEST, I got a letter
where Steven Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that...
[snippage]
This patch will provide the comment lines in the shell script associated
with the command, cleaned up a bit for presentation.
BUGS: This will also
6 matches
Mail list logo
