Hi Peff,
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > So YMMV with git-s. My rule of thumb is: if I want to use this
> > myself only, I'll make it an alias. If I want to ship it (e.g. with Git
> > for Windows), I'll make it a
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > So it's maybe do-able, but not quite as trivial as one might hope.
>
> A trivial alternative would be to recommend adding a man page for
> 3rd-party git-s.
>
> In other words, as soon as `git-sizer` is accompanied by
Hi Peff,
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 08:22:11PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > So maybe we should just document this interface better. It seems one
> > implicit dependency is that we expect a manpage for the tool to exist
> > for --help.
>
>
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 08:22:11PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> So maybe we should just document this interface better. It seems one
> implicit dependency is that we expect a manpage for the tool to exist
> for --help.
Yeah, I think this really the only problematic assumption. The
On Fri, Nov 16 2018, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:38 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> A follow-up on this: We should really fix this for other
>> reasons. I.e. compile in some "this is stuff we ourselves think is in
>> git".
>>
>> There's other
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:38 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> [...]
> A follow-up on this: We should really fix this for other
> reasons. I.e. compile in some "this is stuff we ourselves think is in
> git".
>
> There's other manifestations of this, e.g.:
>
> git-sizer --help # => shows
On Fri, Nov 02 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> I think up to patch 4 here should be near a state that's ready for
> inclusion.
>
> Although I'm on the fence with the approach in 1/5. Should this be a
> giant getopt switch statement like that in a helper script? An
> alternative would be
Hi Ævar,
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> * GIT_TEST_INSTALLED breaks entirely under this, as early as the
>heuristic for "are we built?" being "do we have git-init in
>libexecdir?". I tried a bit to make this work, but there's a lot of
>dependencies there.
I
On Sat, Nov 03 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>> Although I'm on the fence with the approach in 1/5. Should this be a
>> giant getopt switch statement like that in a helper script?
>>
>> An alternative would be to write out a shell file similar to
>>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Although I'm on the fence with the approach in 1/5. Should this be a
> giant getopt switch statement like that in a helper script?
>
> An alternative would be to write out a shell file similar to
> GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS and source that from this thing. I don't
I think up to patch 4 here should be near a state that's ready for
inclusion.
Although I'm on the fence with the approach in 1/5. Should this be a
giant getopt switch statement like that in a helper script? An
alternative would be to write out a shell file similar to
GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS and source
11 matches
Mail list logo
