From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eric S. Raymond" Subject: Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:32:29 -0500 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20121125173229.GA32394@thyrsus.com> References: <20121125024451.1ADD14065F@snark.thyrsus.com> <20121125095356.GA22279@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 25 18:33:39 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tcg5J-0005OY-Qh for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:33:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753248Ab2KYRdW (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:33:22 -0500 Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:43209 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753232Ab2KYRdV (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:33:21 -0500 Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52DD74065F; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:32:29 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Felipe Contreras : > Seems sensible, but I don't know what "rejection" would actually mean. Why is this mysterious? We reject a patch when we don't choose to merge it. > My "extensions" are on the way to the contrib area. Is the contrib > area supposed to have different rules? I don't know. I don't have a strong opinion about this. I lean towards looser rules for contrib because, among other things, it's a place for experiments and we disclaim responsibility for maintaining it. But requiring 2.6 compatibility for Python scripts is not really onerous. > Too late. I'd be happy to help you out by auditing them for version dependencies. > I don't see what this means in practical terms. People are going to > write code in whatever language they want to write code in. How > exactly are "we" going to "encourage" them not to do that is not > entirely clear to me. One way is by having clear guidelines for good practice that *include* Python, and tell people exactly what the requirements are. > Subcommands are also probably more efficient in c. And lets remember > that most people use git through the *official* subcommands. See my remarks on the 80-20 rule elsewhere in the thread. Execessive worship of "efficiency" is a great way to waste effort and pile up hidden costs in maintainance problems. -- Eric S. Raymond