Re: start of git2 (based on libgit2)

["Motiejus Jakštys" <desired.mta@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:54:25AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> On 26-3-2011 0:12, Motiejus Jakštys wrote:
> >According to Jeff King[2], I should start with plumbing commands. I
> >agree.  However, how deep?  I.e. do I have to make sure all git rev-list
> >possible arguments are implemented?
> 
> I guess a lot can be copied from Git itself. Actually
> builtin/rev-list.c consists mostly of command line arguments parsing
> methods, and outputting functions. The key is to parse what you want
> to know and ask libgit2 to provide the info. If libgit2 has
> implemented the basic functionality that is needed, the rest would
> be relatively simple.
> AFAICS, current git is a single binary on Windows already.

So I have the answer. Thank you. Further working path is getting
clearer. Finish with rev-list, make it work with t/. Then pick up
dependencies of one of the must-have commands (commit/merge/diff?),
implement them and implement the command.

> 
> >Build tool. Currently libgit2 uses waf. I am not against it (I've chosen
> >waf for one of my own C++ projects), However, it's too clumsy for me. Is
> >it me who lacks experience? Scons looks much easier for me. Moreover, we
> >do not need automatic configuration, so it makes waf "overfeatured".
> 
> Why not CMake which is also used for libgit2 ?

Did not notice that. I noticed wscript and stopped looking... I never
tried CMake before. But I have nothing against it.

> 
> I already wrote a CMakeLists file for your git2 app.

Very nice. Pull request? Patch?

> 
> As you know, this project can be possibly fulfilled by a GSoC
> student (either you or someone else). Maybe people are awaiting this
> before diving into the project.

Competition is a good thing. The most important thing is picking the
best choice.

Thank you Vincent,
Motiejus