From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:31:56 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <46CC3090.7080500@gmail.com> <86absjenc3.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <46CC3C17.8040901@op5.se> <864pirej6w.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86mywjcwv7.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <3f4fd2640708221434i4f5650e0u9adb523742666f40@mail.gmail.com> <20070823102036.GG7267@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Reece Dunn , git@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 23 12:32:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IO9zZ-0001Cq-Bs for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:32:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759240AbXHWKcV (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:32:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758250AbXHWKcV (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:32:21 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:42321 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755879AbXHWKcU (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:32:20 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2007 10:32:18 -0000 Received: from wbgn128.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO [192.168.0.57]) [132.187.25.128] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 23 Aug 2007 12:32:18 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/BPKtgOU3BfLR+Uwht1lTOGU9ddnf7cgYyThxWP/ KE46of7EpxrL6b X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20070823102036.GG7267@thunk.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:10:20AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Red herring. The proposal was not to do nothing, but rather give git > > > > a dedicated scripting language internal to it. > > > > > > That is a really neat idea. > > > > Why? Why should just _having_ a dedicated scripting language _per se_ be > > a neat idea? We do not _need_ it! We script git in bash, perl, other > > people in Python, Ruby, and even Haskell. So why should we _take away_ > > that freedom from others to script Git in whatever language they like > > most? There is no good reason. > > Users should be able to script in whatever language they want; that's > clear. However, what some people were talking about was an internal > scripting language that would be used for writing git commands, as an > alternative to an alternative future where everything gets moved to C. And that is _exactly_ where I fail to see benefits from. You only get the full power of C by using C. You only get the full power of all open source C programmers by using C. And you only get the full flexibility, speed, name-your-own-pet-peeve using C. Mind you, I use scripts a lot. I even have some projects where I git-added a script to add aliases which are so large as to fit half a terminal. But we should not _force_ people to have bash or perl when they do not plan to use it themselves. > (To accomodate those Windows users who for some silly reason refuse to > install Cygwin, bash, and perl on their Windows development box. :-) I have seen boxes where the administrators locked down everything. And Cygwin _does_ need to write the registry, and there is _no_ easy way to have two independent Cygwin installs on the same machine. This is where MinGW/MSys really shines. > So for those people who think an internal scripting language would be a > worthwhile way of implementing certain git commands, instead of > converting them all to C, my suggestion would be to "show us the code". > Actually create the git to LUA bindings, and then show how easily it > would be to rewrite a bunch of the existing git commands which are > currently implemented in shell in LUA instead. And force everybody who wants to contribute to _those_ parts of Git to learn LUA? It is not about languages. It is about people. Choosing an obscure language automatically limits your most valuable resource: people. We saw that already with filter-branch (which saw some duplicate efforts, because one developer was not comfortable with shell; we had two different programs with different suboptimal behaviours). > But if people are just gushing over the glories of elisp and saying > things like *someone* should create a scripting language for git, it's > just going to be a waste of everyone's time. Amen, Dscho