Thomas Quinot writes:
> * Junio C Hamano, 2014-11-09 :
>
>> Whatever. I loathe the CMD abbreviation, though. Why spell out
>> SHELL but not COMMAND? I.e. GIT_SSH_[SHELL_]COMMAND
>
> No strong opinion :-) GIT_SSH_COMMAND looks just fine to me.
> (GIT_SSH_SHELL_COMMAND starts to feel a bit long.
* Junio C Hamano, 2014-11-09 :
> Whatever. I loathe the CMD abbreviation, though. Why spell out
> SHELL but not COMMAND? I.e. GIT_SSH_[SHELL_]COMMAND
No strong opinion :-) GIT_SSH_COMMAND looks just fine to me.
(GIT_SSH_SHELL_COMMAND starts to feel a bit long...)
Thomas.
--
To unsubscribe f
Thomas Quinot writes:
> Could also be GIT_SSH_SHELLCMD, to denote that this is a *shell*
> command...
Whatever. I loathe the CMD abbreviation, though. Why spell out
SHELL but not COMMAND? I.e. GIT_SSH_[SHELL_]COMMAND
>> Parsing complications aside, you cannot even know in git which ssh is
>>
* Jeff King, 2014-11-09 :
> Thanks, I like this much better. The name GIT_SSH_CMD is not too bad.
> Personally, of the two (GIT_SSH and GIT_SSH_CMD) I would expect the
> "_CMD" form to be the one that does not use the shell.
Right, except of course we're stuck with the compatibility issue in any
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Thomas Quinot wrote:
> It may be impractical to install a wrapper script for GIT_SSH
> when additional parameters need to be passed. Provide an alternative
> way of specifying a shell command to be run, including command line
> arguments, by means of the G
It may be impractical to install a wrapper script for GIT_SSH
when additional parameters need to be passed. Provide an alternative
way of specifying a shell command to be run, including command line
arguments, by means of the GIT_SSH_CMD environment variable, which
behaves like GIT_SSH but is passe
6 matches
Mail list logo
