Re: rfc - Changing the way gitk and git-gui are managed

[Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr>]

The 24/07/10, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> 
> > What is the issue with the current status?
> 
> Here is one:
> 
>  $ git log --oneline -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk
>  $ git log --oneline --follow -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk
>  62ba514 Move gitk to its own subdirectory
>  $ git log --oneline -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk gitk
>  207ad7b gitk: Set the font for all listbox widgets
>  $

I'm sorry, I don't get your point here.

> > Going this way, why would we want gitk and git-gui as submodules at all?
> 
> If we want to stop distributing them completely (though I am not
> convinced that would be a good idea), then submodules would be a
> good stopping point along the way to avoid changing the world too
> much at a time.

It depends on why we would want to split gitk and git-gui from git. If
it's a packaging issue only (especially for distribution maintainers),
going by the "submodule" step looks more like adding a non-valuable
extra step in the "splitting packages" mainstream.

Changing the world once seems better than twice.

> git archive hasn’t learned to do recursive archive yet; I think
> the last murmurs of that topic were [1] and [2],

I understand gitk and git-gui are in the Git repository mostly for
historical reason. I don't want to hurt someone here but I still don't
see what both have so special against other porcelain tools not in
git.git.

>                                                  though it would
> be simple enough to use "git archive" more than once together
> with "tar rf" to take care of it by hand in this case.

So, doing a tar archive of them all (with or whitout submodules) is not
such an issue.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht