[FYI][PATCH] Customizing the WinGit installer

This patch is intended just as a FYI example on customizing the WinGit
installer for e.g. corporate deployment or similar needs, as a starting
point in case anyone needs to do that.

This patch removes some steps redundant for our usage scenario (choose
of the $PATH mode, showing release notes), slightly customizes the
default Git configuration and changes the quickstart icon from Git Bash
to Git GUI (this one might be worth considering for upstream too,
especially after stock git-gui gains the remotes management support).

Signed-off-by: Petr Baudis <redacted>

---

diff --git a/etc/gitconfig b/etc/gitconfig
index 251088c..d0e8e53 100644
--- a/etc/gitconfig
+++ b/etc/gitconfig

@@ -5,3 +5,12 @@
 	diff = auto
 [pack]
 	packSizeLimit = 2g
+[locator "Server"]
+	template = M:/public_git/%s
+[locator "Library"]
+	template = git://lib.example.com/%s
+[gui]
+	remotelocator = Server
+	pulllocator = Library
+	pushlocator = Server
+	autoexplore = true

diff --git a/share/WinGit/install.iss b/share/WinGit/install.iss
index 0f0514d..05fdae6 100644
--- a/share/WinGit/install.iss
+++ b/share/WinGit/install.iss

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ ChangesEnvironment=yes
 DefaultDirName={pf}\{#emit APP_NAME}
 DefaultGroupName={#emit APP_NAME}
 DisableReadyPage=yes
-InfoBeforeFile=gpl-2.0.rtf
+;InfoBeforeFile=gpl-2.0.rtf
 PrivilegesRequired=none
 UninstallDisplayIcon=etc\git.ico
 

@@ -36,13 +36,13 @@ Name: guiextension; Description: "Add ""Git &GUI Here"""; GroupDescription: "Win
 
 [Files]
 Source: "*"; DestDir: "{app}"; Excludes: "\*.bmp, gpl-2.0.rtf, \install.*, \tmp.*, \bin\*install*"; Flags: recursesubdirs
-Source: ReleaseNotes.rtf; DestDir: "{app}"; Flags: isreadme
+;Source: ReleaseNotes.rtf; DestDir: "{app}"; Flags: isreadme
 
 [Icons]
 Name: "{group}\Git GUI"; Filename: "{app}\bin\wish.exe"; Parameters: """{app}\bin\git-gui"""; WorkingDir: "%USERPROFILE%"; IconFilename: "{app}\etc\git.ico"
 Name: "{group}\Git Bash"; Filename: "{syswow64}\cmd.exe"; Parameters: "/c """"{app}\bin\sh.exe"" --login -i"""; WorkingDir: "%USERPROFILE%"; IconFilename: "{app}\etc\git.ico"
 Name: "{group}\Uninstall Git"; Filename: "{uninstallexe}"
-Name: "{userappdata}\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\Git Bash"; Filename: "{syswow64}\cmd.exe"; Parameters: "/c """"{app}\bin\sh.exe"" --login -i"""; WorkingDir: "%USERPROFILE%"; IconFilename: "{app}\etc\git.ico"; Tasks: quicklaunchicon
+Name: "{userappdata}\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\Git GUI"; Filename: "{app}\bin\wish.exe"; Parameters: """{app}\bin\git-gui"""; WorkingDir: "%USERPROFILE%"; IconFilename: "{app}\etc\git.ico"; Tasks: quicklaunchicon
 Name: "{code:GetShellFolder|desktop}\Git Bash"; Filename: "{syswow64}\cmd.exe"; Parameters: "/c """"{app}\bin\sh.exe"" --login -i"""; WorkingDir: "%USERPROFILE%"; IconFilename: "{app}\etc\git.ico"; Tasks: desktopicon
 
 [Messages]

@@ -171,8 +171,7 @@ begin
 end;
 
 var
-    EnvPage,PuTTYPage:TWizardPage;
-    RdbGitBash,RdbGitCmd,RdbGitCmdTools:TRadioButton;
+    PuTTYPage:TWizardPage;
     RdbOpenSSH,RdbPLink:TRadioButton;
     EdtPLink:TEdit;
 

@@ -197,105 +196,12 @@ end;
 
 procedure InitializeWizard;
 var
-    LblGitBash,LblGitCmd,LblGitCmdTools,LblGitCmdToolsWarn:TLabel;
     LblOpenSSH,LblPLink:TLabel;
     BtnPLink:TButton;
 begin
-    // Create a custom page for modifying the environment.
-    EnvPage:=CreateCustomPage(
-        wpSelectTasks,
-        'Adjusting your PATH environment',
-        'How would you like to use Git from the command line?'
-    );
-
-    // 1st choice
-    RdbGitBash:=TRadioButton.Create(EnvPage);
-    with RdbGitBash do begin
-      Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-      Caption:='Use Git Bash only';
-      Left:=ScaleX(4);
-      Top:=ScaleY(8);
-      Width:=ScaleX(129);
-      Height:=ScaleY(17);
-      Font.Style:=[fsBold];
-      TabOrder:=0;
-      Checked:=True;
-    end;
-    LblGitBash:=TLabel.Create(EnvPage);
-    with LblGitBash do begin
-        Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-        Caption:=
-            'This is the most conservative choice if you are concerned about the stability' + #13 +
-            'of your system. Your PATH will not be modified.';
-        Left:=ScaleX(28);
-        Top:=ScaleY(32);
-        Width:=ScaleX(405);
-        Height:=ScaleY(26);
-    end;
-
-    // 2nd choice
-    RdbGitCmd:=TRadioButton.Create(EnvPage);
-    with RdbGitCmd do begin
-      Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-      Caption:='Run Git from the Windows Command Prompt';
-      Left:=ScaleX(4);
-      Top:=ScaleY(76);
-      Width:=ScaleX(281);
-      Height:=ScaleY(17);
-      Font.Style:=[fsBold];
-      TabOrder:=1;
-    end;
-    LblGitCmd:=TLabel.Create(EnvPage);
-    with LblGitCmd do begin
-        Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-        Caption:=
-            'This option is considered safe and no conflicts with other tools are known.' + #13 +
-            'Only Git will be added to your PATH. Use this option if you want to use Git' + #13 +
-            'from a Cygwin Prompt (make sure to not have Cygwin''s Git installed).';
-        Left:=ScaleX(28);
-        Top:=ScaleY(100);
-        Width:=ScaleX(405);
-        Height:=ScaleY(39);
-    end;
-
-    // 3rd choice
-    RdbGitCmdTools:=TRadioButton.Create(EnvPage);
-    with RdbGitCmdTools do begin
-      Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-      Caption:='Run Git and included Unix tools from the Windows Command Prompt';
-      Left:=ScaleX(4);
-      Top:=ScaleY(152);
-      Width:=ScaleX(405);
-      Height:=ScaleY(17);
-      Font.Style:=[fsBold];
-      TabOrder:=2;
-    end;
-    LblGitCmdTools:=TLabel.Create(EnvPage);
-    with LblGitCmdTools do begin
-        Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-        Caption:='Both Git and its accompanying Unix tools will be added to your PATH.';
-        Left:=ScaleX(28);
-        Top:=ScaleY(176);
-        Width:=ScaleX(405);
-        Height:=ScaleY(13);
-    end;
-    LblGitCmdToolsWarn:=TLabel.Create(EnvPage);
-    with LblGitCmdToolsWarn do begin
-        Parent:=EnvPage.Surface;
-        Caption:=
-            'Warning: This will override Windows tools like find.exe and' + #13 +
-            'sort.exe. Select this option only if you understand the implications.';
-        Left:=ScaleX(28);
-        Top:=ScaleY(192);
-        Width:=ScaleX(376);
-        Height:=ScaleY(26);
-        Font.Color:=255;
-        Font.Style:=[fsBold];
-    end;
-
     // Create a custom page for using PuTTY's plink instead of ssh.
     PuTTYPage:=CreateCustomPage(
-        EnvPage.ID,
+        wpSelectTasks,
         'Choosing the SSH executable',
         'Which Secure Shell client program would you like Git to use?'
     );

@@ -537,45 +443,6 @@ begin
         end;
     end;
 
-    // Modify the PATH variable as requested by the user.
-    if RdbGitCmd.Checked or RdbGitCmdTools.Checked then begin
-        i:=GetArrayLength(EnvPath);
-        SetArrayLength(EnvPath,i+1);
-
-        // List \cmd before \bin so \cmd has higher priority and programs in
-        // there will be called in favor of those in \bin.
-        EnvPath[i]:=ExpandConstant('{app}\cmd');
-
-        if RdbGitCmdTools.Checked then begin
-            SetArrayLength(EnvPath,i+2);
-            EnvPath[i+1]:=ExpandConstant('{app}\bin');
-
-            // Set HOME for the Windows Command Prompt, but only if it has not been set manually before.
-            EnvHome:=GetEnvStrings('HOME',IsAdminLoggedOn);
-            i:=GetArrayLength(EnvHome);
-            if (i=0) or ((i=1) and (Length(EnvHome[0])=0)) then begin
-                SetArrayLength(EnvHome,1);
-                EnvHome[0]:=ExpandConstant('{%USERPROFILE}');
-                if not SetEnvStrings('HOME',IsAdminLoggedOn,True,EnvHome) then begin
-                    Msg:='Line {#emit __LINE__}: Unable to set the HOME environment variable.';
-                    MsgBox(Msg,mbError,MB_OK);
-                    Log(Msg);
-                    // This is not a critical error, the user can probably fix it manually,
-                    // so we continue.
-                end;
-
-                // Mark that we have changed HOME.
-                if not SetIniString('Environment','HOME',EnvHome[0],FileName) then begin
-                    Msg:='Line {#emit __LINE__}: Unable to write to file "'+FileName+'".';
-                    MsgBox(Msg,mbError,MB_OK);
-                    Log(Msg);
-                    // This is not a critical error, though uninstall / reinstall will probably not run cleanly,
-                    // so we continue.
-                end;
-            end;
-        end;
-    end;
-
     // Set the current user's PATH directories.
     if not SetEnvStrings('PATH',IsAdminLoggedOn,True,EnvPath) then begin
         Msg:='Line {#emit __LINE__}: Unable to set the PATH environment variable.';

Hi,

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

-InfoBeforeFile=gpl-2.0.rtf

I'd rather keep it in, especially in a corporate environment.

Ciao,
Dscho

  Hi,

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

-InfoBeforeFile=gpl-2.0.rtf

I'd rather keep it in, especially in a corporate environment.

  why? How is it relevant for the users?

  (Corporate environment or not, I actually never understood showing GPL
in the installers. It always seemed to me that people just feel the need
to fill the space where the EULA usually appears. ;-)

				Petr "Pasky" Baudis

Hi,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

  Hi,

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

-InfoBeforeFile=gpl-2.0.rtf

I'd rather keep it in, especially in a corporate environment.

  why? How is it relevant for the users?

To give them an idea about their _rights_.  Because they are entitled by 
the GPL to get -- in source -- the changes that were done to that 
particular distributions.

Speaking from experience, companies usually do not want to tell you about 
your rights with regard to free software.

And in this case, I have a personal interest.  I feel that my efforts to 
the msysGit project are not really rewarded.  People like to use it, but 
they hardly give anything back (you being a very notable exception).

Ciao,
Dscho

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

-InfoBeforeFile=gpl-2.0.rtf

I'd rather keep it in, especially in a corporate environment.

  why? How is it relevant for the users?

To give them an idea about their _rights_.  Because they are entitled by 
the GPL to get -- in source -- the changes that were done to that 
particular distributions.

Speaking from experience, companies usually do not want to tell you about 
your rights with regard to free software.

And in this case, I have a personal interest.  I feel that my efforts to 
the msysGit project are not really rewarded.  People like to use it, but 
they hardly give anything back (you being a very notable exception).

Wouldn't it be better to keep it, but move it from EULA position
to for example 'License' item in 'Help' entry (below 'About') in
gitk and git-gui?  IIRC there was a lot of controversy about Firefox
using EULA, although MS Windows users are most probably used to it...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Hi,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to keep it [showing the GPL], but move it from 
EULA position to for example 'License' item in 'Help' entry (below 
'About') in gitk and git-gui?  IIRC there was a lot of controversy about 
Firefox using EULA, although MS Windows users are most probably used to 
it...

Well, I consider it a courtesy to the msysGit people to leave it where it 
is.  Of course, this is free software and you are free to disregard my 
wish.

Ciao,
Dscho

  Hi,

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 05:23:19PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

To give them an idea about their _rights_.  Because they are entitled by 
the GPL to get -- in source -- the changes that were done to that 
particular distributions.

Speaking from experience, companies usually do not want to tell you about 
your rights with regard to free software.

And in this case, I have a personal interest.  I feel that my efforts to 
the msysGit project are not really rewarded.  People like to use it, but 
they hardly give anything back (you being a very notable exception).

  Maybe this is a little of a misunderstanding. This is not a "consumer"
aimed customized Git version. This is for internal Git usage within the
corporation, the users have varying interest in Git but it is generally
very low, they just regard it as another tool and they will never hack
or customize it; I just don't see a point in bothering them with another
extra installation step. Maybe in more general Git distribution I would
agree this change indeed is not that appropriate (even though in my own
GPL'd project, I wouldn't add the GPL step to the installer anyway).

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
People who take cold baths never have rheumatism, but they have
cold baths.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Well, I consider it a courtesy to the msysGit people to leave it where 
it is.

Umm. I consider it to be UNACCEPTABLY STUPID to claim "courtesy" if it 
actually makes something just more irritating to users.

I absolutely detest clicking through EULA's or other self-serving crap. I 
hate software that bothers me with their license details. Nobody reads 
those things anyway, and an extra click or an extra window I didn't ask 
for - _especially_ in open source software - is just a bug.

Bugs aren't "courtesy". Not to the user, and certainly not to the 
developer.

			Linus

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:

I absolutely detest clicking through EULA's or other self-serving crap. I
hate software that bothers me with their license details. Nobody reads
those things anyway, and an extra click or an extra window I didn't ask
for - _especially_ in open source software - is just a bug.

I'll just jump in and add my (admittedly inexperienced) $0.02 -
namely, my confusion as to why the GPL would be displayed in place of
a EULA when ...it's not a EULA. It is not about how the software may
be used at all:

  Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
  covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of running
  the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is
  covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
  (independent of having been made by running the Program).  Whether that
  is true depends on what the Program does.

Hi,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

Well, I consider it a courtesy to the msysGit people to leave it where 
it is.

Umm. I consider it to be UNACCEPTABLY STUPID to claim "courtesy" if it 
actually makes something just more irritating to users.

I absolutely detest clicking through EULA's or other self-serving crap. 
I hate software that bothers me with their license details. Nobody reads 
those things anyway, and an extra click or an extra window I didn't ask 
for - _especially_ in open source software - is just a bug.

Bugs aren't "courtesy". Not to the user, and certainly not to the 
developer.

It is not a bug.  It is a message that tells the Windows user that this is 
GPLed software, and that they are free to copy it.  Windows users (and 
developers on Windows are more of users than developers) are often not 
aware of that fact.

That is the reason why many Open Source projects do not bother on Linux, 
but do bother on Windows.

So I guess we simply disagree here.

Ciao,
Dscho

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

It is not a bug.

If it's unwanted functionality, that's a bug. That's kind of the whole 
(and only) difference between "bug" and "feature". Do people want it?

And Petr made it clear that he didn't want it. And I can certainly 
understand why - so it's not just some confused user. As such, it's 
clearly not a feature, and is clearly a bug.

			Linus

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:01:38PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

It is not a bug.  It is a message that tells the Windows user that this is 
GPLed software, and that they are free to copy it.  Windows users (and 
developers on Windows are more of users than developers) are often not 
aware of that fact.

That is the reason why many Open Source projects do not bother on Linux, 
but do bother on Windows.

It's pointless and harmful to present any non-relevant information for 
users. I simply hate programs that waste my precious seconds. I want it 
NOW, not soon. Developers can tell the license if they want to 
distribute it, but users do not need it at all.

So I guess we simply disagree here.

I disagree VIOLENTLY with you. I've been utterly struck with this 
Windows crap here.. I spent a day installing stupid trivial software 
and answering pointless EULAs. I REALLY REALLY hate extra questions.. 
This is my 20th reboot..

-- 
Heikki Orsila
heikki.orsila@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/shd

On 06/10/2008 20:01, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

Well, I consider it a courtesy to the msysGit people to leave it where
it is.

Umm. I consider it to be UNACCEPTABLY STUPID to claim "courtesy" if it
actually makes something just more irritating to users.

I absolutely detest clicking through EULA's or other self-serving crap.
I hate software that bothers me with their license details. Nobody reads
those things anyway, and an extra click or an extra window I didn't ask
for - _especially_ in open source software - is just a bug.

Bugs aren't "courtesy". Not to the user, and certainly not to the
developer.

It is not a bug.  It is a message that tells the Windows user that this is
GPLed software, and that they are free to copy it.  Windows users (and
developers on Windows are more of users than developers) are often not
aware of that fact.

Well, maybe so called "Windows pseudo-developers" do not feel welcome to 
participate to this particular project? Or maybe this project has not 
reached yet the minimum visibility threshold? git has a lot of 
contributors on Linux because it is visible there. Do you think all 
users of git on Linux systematically contributes?

Don't get me wrong, I am truly thankful for msysgit but, IMHO, if you 
produce and publish a free software you should just accept and be glad 
that it is used. Otherwise, just don't publish it.

That is the reason why many Open Source projects do not bother on Linux,
but do bother on Windows.

And a lot other projects do not bother with this even on Windows and Mac 
too.

Regards,
Abdel.

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:47:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

It is not a bug.

If it's unwanted functionality, that's a bug. That's kind of the whole 
(and only) difference between "bug" and "feature". Do people want it?

It looks like you have changed your opinion since what you wrote half
a year ago.

Back then you said:

Yeah. Why not just rather than the whole ok/cancel discussion, go with a 
single button saying "good for me!" and be done with it.

IOW, the license thing should be considered *informational* rather than a 
choice. Because to a user, that's exactly what the GPL is.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.msysgit/1677

Also, please, re-read what Junio said in this thread:

"I think removing the license dialog is a bad idea.  You need to
tell the end-user about his rights, and one of the things is
that he can get source to git under the terms of GPLv2.  The bug
is not about showing the license, but is about refusing to
install unless the end user agrees with it."

I think such a step as removing the license should be approved by
Junio and not be taken behind his back as it's happening now.


Dmitry

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:11:25PM +0300, Heikki Orsila wrote:

I disagree VIOLENTLY with you. I've been utterly struck with this 
Windows crap here.. I spent a day installing stupid trivial software 
and answering pointless EULAs. I REALLY REALLY hate extra questions.. 

Git installer should NOT ask you whether you agree with the license,
but it merely shows you the license. (At least, it is what was decided
half a year ago).

This is my 20th reboot..

I am pretty sure that 20th reboot has nothing to do with how many times
the license has been shown...

Dmitry

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Dmitry Potapov wrote:

It looks like you have changed your opinion since what you wrote half
a year ago.

Back then, nobody had really complained and sent in a patch to make it 
optional.

That changes things. Once some user actually complains, and sends in a 
fix to make the whole dialog optional, I don't see why anybody would ever 
argue against such a patch being accepted.

		Linus

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Dmitry Potapov [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:11:25PM +0300, Heikki Orsila wrote:

quoted

I disagree VIOLENTLY with you. I've been utterly struck with this
Windows crap here.. I spent a day installing stupid trivial software
and answering pointless EULAs. I REALLY REALLY hate extra questions..

Git installer should NOT ask you whether you agree with the license,
but it merely shows you the license. (At least, it is what was decided
half a year ago).

FWIW, the only reason *installers* ever show licenses is because they
want to give you *additional* restrictions on top of normal copyright,
and making you "click through" the license before using the
application might (or might not) make those restrictions more legally
enforceable than simply including that license along with the program.

Installers don't show you the license to increase visibility; they do
it for legal reasons.

The most visible place to put a license is in either a splash screen
or a Help|About dialog.  If I'm using a program and I want to know the
license, that's where I look.

This whole discussion is silly because end users, who are the ones we
claim to be worried about, will not be the ones running the installer
anyway at a large company.  It'll be the IT department guy, who
already knows the license and will have to run the installer 500
times.  And if it's not a large company, individuals will see the
license when they go to download the software.

Have fun,

Avery

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 07:10:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

That changes things. Once some user actually complains, and sends in a 
fix to make the whole dialog optional, I don't see why anybody would ever 
argue against such a patch being accepted.

First, he did not complain. He did not even mention that in the commit
message. He mentioning some other things like removing release notes,
but not the license. Second, I would expect that any change that goes
against the previous achieved agreement may deserve some discussion,
and not blindly accepted just because the user sent a patch. Okay, I
don't really care whether the installer shows the license or not...
Perhaps, something like Help|License would be a better place for it.

Dmitry

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:59:42AM +0400, Dmitry Potapov wrote:

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:11:25PM +0300, Heikki Orsila wrote:

quoted

I disagree VIOLENTLY with you. I've been utterly struck with this 
Windows crap here.. I spent a day installing stupid trivial software 
and answering pointless EULAs. I REALLY REALLY hate extra questions.. 

Git installer should NOT ask you whether you agree with the license,
but it merely shows you the license. (At least, it is what was decided
half a year ago).

It shouldn't even show that. Also, decisions can be changed..

quoted

This is my 20th reboot..

I am pretty sure that 20th reboot has nothing to do with how many times
the license has been shown...

Well, I've clicked through annoying "I accept" EULAs at least that many 
times already..

-- 
Heikki Orsila
heikki.orsila@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/shd

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 07:08:24AM +0400, Dmitry Potapov wrote:

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 07:10:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

That changes things. Once some user actually complains, and sends in a 
fix to make the whole dialog optional, I don't see why anybody would ever 
argue against such a patch being accepted.

First, he did not complain. He did not even mention that in the commit
message.

What does that matter? People are complaining now.

He mentioning some other things like removing release notes,
but not the license. Second, I would expect that any change that goes
against the previous achieved agreement may deserve some discussion,
and not blindly accepted just because the user sent a patch.

Are you thinking this is some kind of decision by committee 
organization? NO. Patches are picked up by maintainers. Anyone can 
comment on the patches as they are published.

Okay, I
don't really care whether the installer shows the license or not...

Then why argue about it? I care very much.

-- 
Heikki Orsila
heikki.orsila@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/shd

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 07:10:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Dmitry Potapov wrote:

quoted

It looks like you have changed your opinion since what you wrote half
a year ago.

Back then, nobody had really complained and sent in a patch to make it 
optional.

That changes things. Once some user actually complains, and sends in a 
fix to make the whole dialog optional, I don't see why anybody would ever 
argue against such a patch being accepted.

Note that as mentioned in the original mail, my patch was not meant
for application upstream, just as an example for others who would like
to customize the Git installer for a particular environment. We wanted
to make Git installation/usage as simple as possible, reducing any
unnecessary steps we could - and this was an easy one.

I don't think the idea of showing GPL during installation makes
a lot of sense on its own, but I don't care much either and clicking
through licences and EULAs in wizards is a fact of life on Windows,
sadly. At least it doesn't require you to scroll down through the
licence as IIRC OpenOffice or GIMP or a similar beast did.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
People who take cold baths never have rheumatism, but they have
cold baths.