Re: git binary directory?

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

I want to avoid extra fork()s and exec()s. They seem to routinely matter
in orders of magnitude of speed in tight loops.

Yes. The more I think about it, the less I like the separate binary 
directory after all. The "git cmd" format is great for high-level 
commands, but we've always done "git-diff-tree" and "git-rev-list" etc 
without the "git cmd" indirection.

Extra fork() and exec() problem still exists, but "git cmd"
format have worked with "git diff-tree" and "git rev-list" for
quite some time (since Jun 14th), so you might've always done it
with dash but that is not a requirement.

It looks like that both you and Pasky are not so enthusiastic
about moving thing out of /usr/bin/, so let's keep things the
way they are for 1.0 release and rethink when we do 2.0 (or
whatever comes after 1.0).

Dear diary, on Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:27:48PM CET, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] said that...

It looks like that both you and Pasky are not so enthusiastic
about moving thing out of /usr/bin/, so let's keep things the
way they are for 1.0 release and rethink when we do 2.0 (or
whatever comes after 1.0).

Well, just to clarify - I'm personally not opposed to it, as long as it
gets done in some timeframe where it won't drastically break backwards
compatibility (that is, not in 1.0.1 or such, but e.g. at some right
moment before 1.0 or at the start of the next development series
whenever that happens), and as long as I get a way to get the path
of the git commands by a single fork().

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.