Re: [RFC/PATCH] rebase -i: add run command to launch a shell command

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The name of the command may be subject to discussions. I've chosen
"run", but maybe "shell" would be OK too. In both cases, it doesn't
allow the one-letter version since both "r" and "s" are already used.

"exec" with one-letter "x"?

Thanks, that sounds good, yes. Any other thought?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

"Matthieu Moy" [off-list ref] wrote in message 
news:vpqd3u53sd2.fsf@bauges.imag.fr...

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

The name of the command may be subject to discussions. I've chosen
"run", but maybe "shell" would be OK too. In both cases, it doesn't
allow the one-letter version since both "r" and "s" are already used.

"exec" with one-letter "x"?

Thanks, that sounds good, yes. Any other thought?

"call" with one-letter "c"?

v/r,
Neal 

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 15:24, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

The name of the command may be subject to discussions. I've chosen
"run", but maybe "shell" would be OK too. In both cases, it doesn't
allow the one-letter version since both "r" and "s" are already used.

"exec" with one-letter "x"?

Thanks, that sounds good, yes. Any other thought?

I like "exec".

I think the docs need to elaborate on the environment the "exec"
command gets executed in, what's its current working directory for
instance? Wherever I happened to run git-rebase from? the project
root?

your if ! eval .. error message also exits with 0, surely that should
exit with 1?

There's also "invoke"

-miles

-- 
Immortality, n.  A toy which people cry for, And on their knees apply for,
      Dispute, contend and lie for, And if allowed Would be right proud
      Eternally to die for.

On 07/30/2010 05:24 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Marc Branchaud[off-list ref]  writes:

quoted

quoted

The name of the command may be subject to discussions. I've chosen
"run", but maybe "shell" would be OK too. In both cases, it doesn't
allow the one-letter version since both "r" and "s" are already used.

"exec" with one-letter "x"?

Thanks, that sounds good, yes. Any other thought?

I like run, for the short version what about ! (as in vi)?  Maybe with 
an optional space.

Paolo

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 15:28, Paolo Bonzini [off-list ref] wrote:

On 07/30/2010 05:24 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

Marc Branchaud[off-list ref]  writes:

quoted

quoted

The name of the command may be subject to discussions. I've chosen
"run", but maybe "shell" would be OK too. In both cases, it doesn't
allow the one-letter version since both "r" and "s" are already used.

"exec" with one-letter "x"?

Thanks, that sounds good, yes. Any other thought?

I like run, for the short version what about ! (as in vi)?  Maybe with an
optional space.

"run" clashes with the short form of "reword", "exec" also does that,
but the "x" key for that is more obvious. ! is a shift-combo away.

Anyway, </bikeshedding>

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 05:28:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

I like run, for the short version what about ! (as in vi)?  Maybe
with an optional space.

Paolo

I disagree. Firstly, "!" is very inconsistent with the current shorthand
forms. I think the "x" makes more since from the point of view that its
very easy to associate with exec (the first syllable is pronounced as
an "x"). "x" is also used by other commands to mean executable (for
example, "chmod +x").

On 31 July 2010 23:56, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 15:24, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

The name of the command may be subject to discussions. I've chosen
"run", but maybe "shell" would be OK too. In both cases, it doesn't
allow the one-letter version since both "r" and "s" are already used.

"exec" with one-letter "x"?

Thanks, that sounds good, yes. Any other thought?

I like "exec".

or (t)est.