Call from .bashrc instead of .bash_profile?

[jpmv27]

The instructions say to install in .bash_profile. If you do this, then find_git_branch and find_git_dirty functions aren't defined in any bash/xterm started from a login shell, so git_branch and git_dirty variables don't get updated.

I think the instructions should be changed to recommend installation in .bashrc instead

[lethosor]

This depends on whether your terminal emulator starts login shells (which load .bash_profile) or non-login shells (which load .bashrc) by default. Both .bash_profile and .bashrc are already mentioned in the readme.

See also #24, #31

[jpmv27]

True, and I have been using git-aware-prompt for a while without noticing the problem because I was always ssh'ing to a Linux VM, so every shell was a login shell.
But I tripped over this when I started using it on a box where I am logged into KDE and then running Konsole, which is not run as a login shell. Then it doesn't work any more.
Anyway, .bash_profile should source .bashrc, so running git-aware-prompt should always work if placed in .bashrc, may not always work if placed in .bash_profile. I'm suggesting it would be "better" to suggest .bashrc as the first choice.

[lethosor]

While it is a good idea to source .bashrc from .bash_profile, or link one to the other, I doubt that everyone who uses git-aware-prompt has done that, given previously-reported issues. Switching the order in the readme is bound to lead to more confusion and issues like "Change .bashrc to .bash_profile?".

I think the best solution is to mention that different environments may read from different files when starting a shell, so people either need to figure out which one to add git-aware-prompt to or ensure that it is set up regardless of which file is loaded (e.g. sourcing one file from the other, linking one file to the other, etc.).

[jpmv27]

What you propose is a good compromise.
It seems that in all the environments I'm currently using (Ubuntu 12.04 and later, Fedora 23 and later) that .bash_profile sources .bashrc, but I don't really know how widespread that is. I do recall that in the (distant) past, that was something that I had to configure myself.
Thanks

[lethosor]

On a fresh installation of Ubuntu 16.04, ~/.bash_profile does not exist, but ~/.profile does (and sources .bashrc when run by bash):

# ~/.profile: executed by the command interpreter for login shells.
# This file is not read by bash(1), if ~/.bash_profile or ~/.bash_login
# exists.
...

Neither of these exist on OS X, however, and it probably varies on other Linux distros.

I'll look at updating the readme if I get a chance, although this project hasn't been especially active lately, so I don't know when it'll get merged.

[joeytwiddle]

I believe the owner is more likely to merge documentation than code.

This popular answer recommends that .bash_profile should always source .bashrc.

Perhaps the installation instructions should recommend using .bashrc but also recommend ensuring that .bash_profile sources .bashrc, for users with "misconfigured" files.

CentOS has no .profile but always sources .bashrc from .bash_profile. Debian does the same as Ubuntu in .profile (see previous comment).

(By the way, we could even detect an interactive shell like this.)