Re: Porcelain/Plumbing

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

"Sverre Rabbelier" <alturin@gmail.com> writes:

> During my efforts gsoc efforts, I stumbled across (or actually, was
> pointed at) 'git branch --contains' to list only branches that contain
> a specific commit. The problem here is that 'git branch' is listed as
> porcelain, and that there seems to be no plumbing equivalent of this
> feature. 

I think there isn't.  If there were, its place probably would be
either in git-show-ref, or in git-for-each-ref, or in both.

> I have the same problem with 'git log -S', although 'git log'
> is pretty sturdy output wise (if you specify the output with
> '--pretty=format:' that is), the idea is the same.

log = rev-list + diff-tree.  The -S (aka. pickaxe) option is option to
git-diff-tree (and friends).  You would have to pipe output of
rev-list to diff-tree (via --stdin) to use -S in porcelain.

> My question is, is it intentional that there is no plumbing equivalent
> forsome functionality, and, in such cases, is it 'ok' to use the
> porcelain from a script? (I think it is not.) I've been recommended to
> stick with the plumbing as much as possible from my code, but with the
> above two cases I've been unsure on what to do.
> What is the advised course of action here?

I think using git-log from scripts is O.K., for example qgit uses
git-log to parse revisions, and IIRC it was recommended on git mailing
list to do that (IIRC it was around adding --encoding=<encoding> and
logOutputEncoding to git).

git-branch I think is too much a porcelain...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git