From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:29:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20121212122909.GA21624@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20121125024451.1ADD14065F@snark.thyrsus.com> <50B1F684.5020805@alum.mit.edu> <20121212033043.GA24937@thyrsus.com> <20121212063208.GA18322@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121212122625.GB25981@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Sitaram Chamarty , Patrick Donnelly , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Michael Haggerty , Felipe Contreras , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric S. Raymond" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 12 13:29:31 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 1TilRK-0005Ee-Dz for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:29:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751964Ab2LLM3N (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:29:13 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:42878 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751494Ab2LLM3N (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:29:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 23943 invoked by uid 107); 12 Dec 2012 12:30:15 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:30:15 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:29:09 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121212122625.GB25981@thyrsus.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:26:25AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Jeff King : > > I think there are really two separate use cases to consider: > > > > 1. Providing snippets of script to Git to get Turing-complete behavior > > for existing Git features. For example, selecting commits during a > > traversal (e.g., a better "log --grep"), formatting output (e.g., a > > better "log --format" or "for-each-ref --format"). > > > > 2. Writing whole new git commands in a language that is quicker or > > easier to develop in than C. > > That's good analysis. I agree with your use-case split, I guess I'm just not > very aware of the places in git where (1) is important. Yeah, I don't think (1) is your use case at all. But when people talk about "Jeff's lua experiment", they are talking about some patches I had to do (1), which covered "log --format" (but ultimately would need more cleanup to be acceptable upstream). Maybe that clears up the discussion a little bit. -Peff