Jakub Narebski wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes: > > >>Wouldn't "git ggrep" (from git-aware grep) or "git bgrep" (from built-in >>grep), similar to the egrep and fgrep from the grep package? > > > Yes, I understand, but I just don't like using 'grip'. And it would be nice > to have some convention for further not-ready-yet built-in replacements for > script versions of commands, for example adding letter 'b' as 'built-in' at > the beginning of command name: 'bgrep', 'bdiff'. Or use postfix 'n' or > '-ng' to denote transitionary not-ready-yet new version of command: > 'grepn', 'diffn' or 'grep-ng', 'diff-ng'. > Forcing the user to remember what's implemented as built-ins is not a good idea. It was for that exact reason the "git-<command>-script" were all renamed "git-<command>" once upon a time. "git grip" work just fine for me, since it's only intended for testing and performance improvements so far. I also think it's clearer for end-users looking for a grep command if they're not faced with fgrep/egrep/ggrep/bgrep alongside plain "grep". -- 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 Tue May 02 18:34:20 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-05-02 18:34:44 EST