From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: start of git2 (based on libgit2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:33:19 +1300 Message-ID: <4D8D88AF.9010306@vilain.net> References: <20110325231203.GA7961@jakstys.lt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?TW90aWVqdXMgSmFrxaF0eXM=?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 26 07:33:30 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3N3x-0004zj-9L for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:33:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751265Ab1CZGdX convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:33:23 -0400 Received: from vilain.net ([60.234.254.246]:58161 "EHLO mail.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751146Ab1CZGdW (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:33:22 -0400 Received: by mail.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 134C42E0AB; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:33:21 +1300 (NZDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on naos.lan X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from [192.168.1.83] (arcturus.local [192.168.1.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 032482E0A6; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:33:20 +1300 (NZDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: <20110325231203.GA7961@jakstys.lt> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 26/03/11 12:12, Motiejus Jak=C5=A1tys wrote: > Build tool. Currently libgit2 uses waf. I am not against it (I've cho= sen > 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". Another one you might like to look at is "ccanlint" - it wraps a whole bunch of things that make for exceptional quality code, such as code coverage by the test suite, documentation coverage, compilable examples= , even cranks it up using valgrind to check that it's right. As far as your question about how much to implement or bring across fro= m git - try to do it feature by feature, with reference to the test suite and make sure each feature has a test. It's a very bad idea IMHO to port across untested features. I'd much rather have a core set of commands which are well tested and stable, than a handful of fully-implemented but buggy commands. Sam