From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Bailey Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Teach git mergetool to use custom commands defined at config time Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:56:20 +0000 Message-ID: <20080217005620.GB504@hashpling.org> References: <20080216185349.GA29177@hashpling.org> <20080217002029.GA504@hashpling.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steffen Prohaska , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 17 01:57:05 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JQXq4-0006sL-Ma for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:57:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753374AbYBQA43 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:56:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753315AbYBQA43 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:56:29 -0500 Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.214]:59680 "EHLO ptb-relay03.plus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753313AbYBQA42 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:56:28 -0500 Received: from [212.159.69.125] (helo=hashpling.plus.com) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JQXpS-0008DZ-DH; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:56:26 +0000 Received: from fermat.hashpling.org (fermat.hashpling.org [127.0.0.1]) by hashpling.plus.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1H0uKMl001385; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:56:20 GMT Received: (from charles@localhost) by fermat.hashpling.org (8.13.8/8.13.6/Submit) id m1H0uK80001384; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:56:20 GMT Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Plusnet-Relay: c23bbe58d10a0acf718a097e746ad257 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:46:15AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Charles Bailey wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 11:37:31PM +0100, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > > > > Why not just add the tools you have in mind to git mergetool? If > > > everyone did that eventually we would have direct support for a rather > > > long list of tools. This would be the easiest solution for the end > > > user: He could just choose the preferred tool and use it. The > > > invocation of each merge tool would be coded in mergetool. The exact > > > command line could be fine tuned and would be reviewed by other git > > > developers. > > > > > > > I have to disagree with this approach. > > So you'd rather have the end users do the same work for the same tool over > and over again? > I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I disagree that the approach of adding new tool support to the source code as and when they are encountered is optimal. I believe that it is preferable to have a solution that allows users to configure, rather then code, support for their own tools that do not to have native support. I do not disagree that there is benefit to having a wide range of tools that are supported natively. I thought I made a reasonable argument for this in the rest of my email that you took the headline from, but evidently I came across as muddled. Charles.