Porcelain/Plumbing

Porcelain/Plumbing

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

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 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.
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?

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: Porcelain/Plumbing

[Jakub Narebski]

"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