Mark Wooding wrote: > Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote: > > >>*1* BTW, I just noticed that git-sh-setup needs to be on user's >>PATH, so we probably have to inline and duplicate the git_exec() >>shell function definition at the beginning of each script after >>all, when we make the initial ". git-sh-setup" inclusion to >>honor GIT_EXEC_PATH without munging the user's PATH. > > > . ${GIT_EXEC_PATH-'@@@GIT_EXEC_PATH@@@'}/git-sh-setup > > isn't too grim, and shows how the git_exec shell function can be made > somewhat terser. > But it breaks the convenience when testing. > By the way, am I the only person who /likes/ having all the git-* > programs on his path? It makes shell completion work fairly well > without having to install strange completion scripts which get out of > date for one thing. > I like it too, but I don't use it unless I can't remember what the command was named (finger-training). It shouldn't be too difficult to make git.c write its own auto-generated bash-completion rules. If someone would care to teach me the syntax I'd gladly hack up a patch for it. This is a Good Thing, since it means it would also work for the internal commands, which bash's path-completion doesn't. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Fri Mar 17 00:54:21 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-17 00:54:37 EST