* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Mazur; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121125214139.GA29465@shrek.podlesie.net>
Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net>:
> What about embedded systems? git is also useful there. C and shell is
> everywhere, python is not.
Supposing this is true (and I question it with regard to shell) if you
tell me how you live without gitk and the Perl pieces I'll play that
right back at you as your answer.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2ft7vvaGqHUa2CytpAsX8vOF3YQo24PLPsD6y1Dk3GZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> > I'd be happy to help you out by auditing them for version dependencies.
>
> Be my guest:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=tree;f=contrib/remote-helpers;h=adfdcc164e634c74024c8f69bb0cdb9f3b4a9f18;hb=7b4a70c62f3a83fbd8b44bf712141754a5f64205
>
> Some patches might be missing, so:
> https://github.com/felipec/git/tree/fc/remote/hg
OK, here's what I look for: use of argparse, use of unittest, use
of Collections.counters, use or ordered dictionaries, use of set literals,
use of multiple context managers in one "with", use of memoryview, use of
the comma format specifier. I'm not worried about the changes in repr()
for floating point; I'd be astonished if they mattered in code like this.
Likewise for PyCapsule and importlib.
I don't see obvious problems in that code. Looks pretty vanilla, actually;
the latest version-related blocker I can see is the import of json,
which would have been a problem before 2.5.
You wrote the code. Do you *know* of 2.7-specific constructions in
there that I've missed? If you do, and think of this as a way to
catch me in a mistake and dance triumphantly, you lose - our goal
should be to cooperate to improve the auditing process, not score
silly points.
> > One way is by having clear guidelines for good practice that *include*
> > Python, and tell people exactly what the requirements are.
>
> The key word being guideline, which is different from a strict rule.
Agreed. It's a matter for the dev group to decide when we need rules
and when we need guidelines. I think we need a rule about Python version
conformance that protects older systems, but other things can be guidelines.
> According to the results of the last survey, our users do care about
> performance, so I don't think there's anything excessive about it. Are
> there any hidden costs in maintenance problems? I don't think so.
Then you're either pretending or very naive. Three decades of
experience as a C programmer tells me that C code at any volume is a
*serious* maintainance problem relative to almost any language with
GC. Prudent architects confine it is much as possible.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Michael Haggerty, git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2fSpL13kDAm9W2ti-MERpKukNzNZ_Yt0oOOWMYOQPr2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> And are you going to be around to spot them? It seems my patches for
> git-remote-hg slipped by your watch, because it seems they use stuff
> specific to python 2.7.
The dev group hasn't decided (in whatever way it decides these
things) to require 2.6 yet. When and if it does, I will volunteer my
services as a Python expert to audit the in-tree Python code for 2.6
conformance and assist the developers in backporting if required.
I will also make myself available to audit future submissions.
I think you know who I am. Junio and the other senior devs certainly
know where to find me. I've been making promises like this, and
*keeping* them, for decades. Please stop wasting our time with
petulant display.
> Exactly. Why would you reject something you can fix easily?
I wouldn't. The point of a policy like this is not to kick incoming
submissions over the horizon as though that were some sort of
accomplishment, it's to let submitters know what is required of
them so they can code up to a standard that supports maintainability.
It would be no different than any of our other portability requirements.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3QNG-sxcZsWmL3RYjXkzOwerj2774t7Abh04A7QR6TCA@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> And gitk is an integral part of git. But if you have different
> numbers, what are they?
I looked at the Makefile. I saw that there are shell variables that collect
C commands, shell command, Perl commands, and Python commands. There are no
collections of other commands. That makes them the top languages in the
universe we are concerned about
Please don't waste further time on quibbling. We all know that gitk is
an uncomfortable special case and that the project would be far better
off, maintainability-wise, if it were successfully ported to one if these
other languages. Trying to catch me out by triumphantly pointing at gitk
is...juvenile.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
--
*** Please reply-to-all at all times ***
*** (do not pretend to know who is subscribed and who is not) ***
*** Please avoid top-posting. ***
The msysGit Wiki is here: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki - Github accounts are free.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "msysGit" group.
To post to this group, send email to msysgit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
msysgit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, and view previous threads, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msysgit?hl=en_US?hl=en
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-25 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121125173229.GA32394@thyrsus.com>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> Seems sensible, but I don't know what "rejection" would actually mean.
>
> Why is this mysterious? We reject a patch when we don't choose to merge it.
Why would you reject it? If, according to you, it's very simple to fix
the portability, then presumably it would take you less time to fix
it, than to reject it (and everything that implies).
>> Too late.
>
> I'd be happy to help you out by auditing them for version dependencies.
Be my guest:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=tree;f=contrib/remote-helpers;h=adfdcc164e634c74024c8f69bb0cdb9f3b4a9f18;hb=7b4a70c62f3a83fbd8b44bf712141754a5f64205
Some patches might be missing, so:
https://github.com/felipec/git/tree/fc/remote/hg
>> I don't see what this means in practical terms. People are going to
>> write code in whatever language they want to write code in. How
>> exactly are "we" going to "encourage" them not to do that is not
>> entirely clear to me.
>
> One way is by having clear guidelines for good practice that *include*
> Python, and tell people exactly what the requirements are.
The key word being guideline, which is different from a strict rule.
>> Subcommands are also probably more efficient in c. And lets remember
>> that most people use git through the *official* subcommands.
>
> See my remarks on the 80-20 rule elsewhere in the thread. Execessive
> worship of "efficiency" is a great way to waste effort and pile up
> hidden costs in maintainance problems.
According to the results of the last survey, our users do care about
performance, so I don't think there's anything excessive about it. Are
there any hidden costs in maintenance problems? I don't think so.
The people that like to improve the performance of git, would keep
doing so, and the people that want to use fancy scripts to do fancy
stuff, will keep doing so. It just happens that the former have
actually managed to do it, and go all the way into the mainline.
It would be great if we had a finished libgit2 with all the essential
stuff, and good bindings for python (and other languages), and it
would be great if python really was this touted language, that is easy
to read, and would make things more maintainable. Unfortunately,
that's not the case.
I could write an endless list of what things in the python language
don't make any sense, and how in ruby, for example, they do.
Fortunately, I don't have to.
Git does have problems, but they have nothing to do with maintenance,
or C; they have to do with the user interface, and the documentation
(again, according to our users (and me)). So, I don't see why worry
about moving code from C to python when barely any code in git is
python, specially if it doesn't fix any real issue.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Krzysztof Mazur @ 2012-11-25 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric S. Raymond; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121125024451.1ADD14065F@snark.thyrsus.com>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 09:44:51PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> We're behind the best-practices curve here. The major Linux
> distributions, which have to deal with almost the same set of
> tradeoffs we do, went to Python for pretty much all glue and
> administration scripts outside /etc a decade ago, and the decision has
> served them well.
>
> That, among other things, means up-to-date versions of Python are
> ubiquitous unless we're looking at Windows - in which case Perl and
> shell actually become much bigger portability problems. Mac OS X
> has kept up to date, too; Lion shipped 2.7.1 and that was a major
> release back at this point.
>
What about embedded systems? git is also useful there. C and shell is
everywhere, python is not. Adding additional dependency if it's not
really needed it's not a good idea.
Also not everyone uses up-to-date systems and sometimes you just
care about some critical parts and do not touch everything else and
there is probably quote large number of systems with python < 2.6.
And even when you keep your system up-to-date, there are some GNU/Linux
distros that are still supported, but does not provide recent python - for
instance PLD Ac, which I still use on some systems and will use
until the hardware dies, provides only python 2.4.6 (by the way,
important packages like git are of course quite recent there - 1.7.11.1).
Krzysiek
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Document the integration requirements for extension commands.
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
This contains no policy changes or proposals, it simply attempts
to document the interfaces and conventions already in place.
---
Documentation/technical/api-command.txt | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 81 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/technical/api-command.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-command.txt b/Documentation/technical/api-command.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de76614
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/technical/api-command.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+= Integrating new subcommands =
+
+This is how-to documentation for people who want to add extension
+commands to git. It should be read alongside api-builtin.txt.
+
+== Runtime environment ==
+
+git subcommands are standalone executables that live in the git
+execution directory, normally /usr/lib/git-core. The git executable itself
+is a thin wrapper that sets GIT_DIR and passes command-line arguments
+to the subcommand.
+
+(If "git foo" is not found in the git execution directory, the wrapper
+will look in the rest of your $PATH for it. Thus, it's possible
+to write local git extensions that don't live in system space.)
+
+== Implementation languages ==
+
+Most subcommands are written in C or shell. A few are written in
+Perl. A tiny minority are written in Python.
+
+While we strongly encourage coding in portable C for portability, these
+specific scripting languages are also acceptable. We won't accept more
+without a very strong technical case, as we don't want to broaden the
+git suite's required dependencies.
+
+C commands are normally written as single modules, named after the
+command, that link a core library called libgit. Thus, your command
+'git-foo' would normally be implemented as a single "git-foo.c"; this
+organization makes it easy for people reading the code to find things.
+
+See the CodingGuidelines document for other guidance on what we consider
+good practice in C and shell, and api-builtin.txt for the support
+functions available to built-in commands written in C.
+
+== What every extension command needs ==
+
+You must have a man page, written in asciidoc (this is what git help
+followed by your subcommand name will display). Be aware that there is
+a local asciidoc configuration and macros which you should use. It's
+often helpful to start by cloning an existing page and replacing the
+text content.
+
+You must have a test, written to report in TAP (Test Anything Protocol).
+Tests are executables (usually shell scripts) that live in the 't'
+subdirectory of the tree. Each test name begins with 't' and a sequence
+number that controls where in the test sequence it will be executed;
+conventionally the rest of the name stem is that of the command
+being tested.
+
+Read the file t/README to learn more about the conventions to be used
+in writing tests, and the test support library.
+
+== Integrating a command ==
+
+Here are the things you need to do when you want to merge a new
+subcommand into the git tree.
+
+1. Append your command name to one of the variables BUILTIN_OBJS,
+EXTRA_PROGRAMS, SCRIPT_SH, SCRIPT_PERL or SCRIPT_PYTHON.
+
+2. Drop its test in the t directory.
+
+3. If your command is implemented in an interpreted language with a
+p-code intermediate form, make sure .gitignore in the main directory
+includes a pattern entry that ignores such files. Python .pyc and
+.pyo files will already be covered.
+
+4. If your command has any dependency on a a particular version of
+your language, document it in the INSTALL file.
+
+5. There is a file command-list.txt in the distribution main directory
+that categorizes commands by type, so they can be listed in appropriate
+subsections in the documentation's summary command list. Add an entry
+for yours. To understand the categories, look at git-cmmands.txt
+in the main directory.
+
+6. When your patch is merged, remind the maintainer to add something
+about it in the RelNotes file.
+
+That's all there is to it.
--
1.7.9.5
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits
drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
-- Thomas Jefferson
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-25 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: Michael Haggerty, git
In-Reply-To: <20121125173607.GB32394@thyrsus.com>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> Of course, but there are experts in C and shell around, not so many
>> python experts. So if somebody sneaks in a python program that makes
>> use of features specific to python 2.7, I doubt anybody would notice.
>
> I would.
And are you going to be around to spot them? It seems my patches for
git-remote-hg slipped by your watch, because it seems they use stuff
specific to python 2.7.
>> And if they did, I doubt that would be reason enough for rejection,
>> supposing that porting to 2.6 would be difficult enough.
>
> In cases like that, backporting is usually pretty easy. Been there, done that.
Exactly. Why would you reject something you can fix easily?
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-25 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <20121125175051.GD32394@thyrsus.com>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> Not according to ohloh:
>>
>> 1) shell 33%
>> 2) tcl 9%
>> 3) perl 9.7%
>>
>> 4) python 1.8%
>
> Look in the Makefile - all that tcl code is buried in gitk. We're
> very, very lucky the author did such a good job, because it's a
> potentially serious headache; who can maintain it?
And gitk is an integral part of git. But if you have different
numbers, what are they?
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] gitk tag delete/rename support
From: Leon KUKOVEC @ 2012-11-25 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, Leon KUKOVEC
In-Reply-To: <CAOrOd9woDs16as+t-EReQ8NtXfYm9mpd0XaFFs-XL=pg+JK1Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Right clicking on a tag pops up a menu, which allows
tag to be renamed or deleted.
Signed-off-by: Leon KUKOVEC <leon.kukovec@gmail.com>
---
gitk-git/gitk | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 154 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gitk-git/gitk b/gitk-git/gitk
index d93bd99..38cc233 100755
--- a/gitk-git/gitk
+++ b/gitk-git/gitk
@@ -2032,6 +2032,7 @@ proc makewindow {} {
global have_tk85 use_ttk NS
global git_version
global worddiff
+ global tagctxmenu
# The "mc" arguments here are purely so that xgettext
# sees the following string as needing to be translated
@@ -2581,6 +2582,13 @@ proc makewindow {} {
{mc "Run git gui blame on this line" command {external_blame_diff}}
}
$diff_menu configure -tearoff 0
+
+ set tagctxmenu .tagctxmenu
+ makemenu $tagctxmenu {
+ {mc "Rename this tag" command mvtag}
+ {mc "Delete this tag" command rmtag}
+ }
+ $tagctxmenu configure -tearoff 0
}
# Windows sends all mouse wheel events to the current focused window, not
@@ -6400,6 +6408,7 @@ proc drawtags {id x xt y1} {
-font $font -tags [list tag.$id text]]
if {$ntags >= 0} {
$canv bind $t <1> [list showtag $tag_quoted 1]
+ $canv bind $t $ctxbut [list showtagmenu %X %Y $id $tag_quoted]
} elseif {$nheads >= 0} {
$canv bind $t $ctxbut [list headmenu %X %Y $id $tag_quoted]
}
@@ -8931,6 +8940,113 @@ proc domktag {} {
return 1
}
+proc mvtag {} {
+ global mvtagtop
+ global tagmenuid tagmenutag tagctxmenu maintag NS
+ global mvtagtag
+
+ set mvtagtag $tagmenutag
+ set top .movetag
+ set mvtagtop $top
+ catch {destroy $top}
+ ttk_toplevel $top
+ make_transient $top .
+
+ ${NS}::label $top.msg -text [mc "Enter a new tag name:"]
+ ${NS}::entry $top.tag -width 60 -textvariable mvtagtag
+
+ grid $top.msg -sticky w -row 0 -column 0
+ grid $top.tag -sticky w -row 0 -column 1
+
+ ${NS}::frame $top.buts
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.gen -text [mc "Rename"] -command mvtaggo
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.can -text [mc "Cancel"] -command mvtagcan
+ bind $top <Key-Return> mvtaggo
+ bind $top <Key-Escape> mvtagcan
+ grid $top.buts.gen $top.buts.can
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 0 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 1 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid $top.buts - -pady 10 -sticky ew
+}
+
+proc domvtag {} {
+ global mvtagtop env tagids idtags tagmenutag tagmenuid mvtagtag
+
+ set tag $mvtagtag
+ set id $tagmenuid
+
+ # add tag
+ # XXX: reuse domktag including keeping comment from the original tag.
+ if {[catch {
+ exec git tag $tag $id
+ } err]} {
+ error_popup "[mc "Error renaming tag:"] $err" $mvtagtop
+ return 0
+ }
+
+ # delete old tag, content stored in $tagmenutag and $tagmenuid
+ dormtag
+
+ set tagids($tag) $id
+ lappend idtags($id) $tag
+ redrawtags $id
+ addedtag $id
+ dispneartags 0
+ run refill_reflist
+ return 1
+}
+
+proc rmtag {} {
+ global rmtagtop
+ global tagmenuid tagmenutag tagctxmenu maintag NS
+
+ set top .maketag
+ set rmtagtop $top
+ catch {destroy $top}
+ ttk_toplevel $top
+ make_transient $top .
+ ${NS}::label $top.title -text [mc "Delete tag"]
+ grid $top.title - -pady 10
+
+ ${NS}::label $top.msg -text [mc "You are about to delete a tag"]
+ ${NS}::label $top.tagname -foreground Red -text [mc "$tagmenutag"]
+ grid $top.msg -sticky w -row 0 -column 0
+ grid $top.tagname -sticky w -row 0 -column 1
+
+ ${NS}::frame $top.buts
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.gen -text [mc "Delete"] -command rmtaggo
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.can -text [mc "Cancel"] -command rmtagcan
+ bind $top <Key-Return> rmtaggo
+ bind $top <Key-Escape> rmtagcan
+ grid $top.buts.gen $top.buts.can
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 0 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 1 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid $top.buts - -pady 10 -sticky ew
+}
+
+proc dormtag {} {
+ global rmtagtop env tagids idtags tagmenutag tagmenuid
+
+ set tag $tagmenutag
+ set id $tagmenuid
+
+ if {[catch {
+ exec git tag -d $tag
+ } err]} {
+ error_popup "[mc "Error deleting tag:"] $err" $rmtagtop
+ return 0
+ }
+
+ unset tagids($tag)
+ set idx [lsearch $idtags($id) $tag]
+ set idtags($id) [lreplace $idtags($id) $idx $idx]
+
+ redrawtags $id
+ dispneartags 0
+ run refill_reflist
+ return 1
+}
+
proc redrawtags {id} {
global canv linehtag idpos currentid curview cmitlisted markedid
global canvxmax iddrawn circleitem mainheadid circlecolors
@@ -8974,6 +9090,30 @@ proc mktaggo {} {
mktagcan
}
+proc rmtagcan {} {
+ global rmtagtop
+
+ catch {destroy $rmtagtop}
+ unset rmtagtop
+}
+
+proc rmtaggo {} {
+ if {![dormtag]} return
+ rmtagcan
+}
+
+proc mvtagcan {} {
+ global mvtagtop
+
+ catch {destroy $mvtagtop}
+ unset mvtagtop
+}
+
+proc mvtaggo {} {
+ if {![domvtag]} return
+ mvtagcan
+}
+
proc writecommit {} {
global rowmenuid wrcomtop commitinfo wrcomcmd NS
@@ -9288,6 +9428,20 @@ proc headmenu {x y id head} {
tk_popup $headctxmenu $x $y
}
+# context menu for a tag
+proc showtagmenu {x y id tag} {
+ global tagmenuid tagmenutag tagctxmenu maintag
+
+ stopfinding
+ set tagmenuid $id
+ set tagmenutag $tag
+ set state normal
+
+ $tagctxmenu entryconfigure 0 -state normal
+ $tagctxmenu entryconfigure 1 -state normal
+ tk_popup $tagctxmenu $x $y
+}
+
proc cobranch {} {
global headmenuid headmenuhead headids
global showlocalchanges
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1cG=5D9DppHmB9CpgkgdEzM72KhQ1Q-kWrrDo8ST+r_g@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> Not according to ohloh:
>
> 1) shell 33%
> 2) tcl 9%
> 3) perl 9.7%
>
> 4) python 1.8%
Look in the Makefile - all that tcl code is buried in gitk. We're
very, very lucky the author did such a good job, because it's a
potentially serious headache; who can maintain it?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Lang; +Cc: Michael Haggerty, Felipe Contreras, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1211250344360.32333@nftneq.ynat.uz>
David Lang <david@lang.hm>:
> You may think that C and Bash are poor choices, but that is what the
> community is familar with.
I don't think C is a "poor" choice. bash, on the other hand...so
many dependencies on tool quirks!
> You are far from the first person to say that git should be
> re-written (or at least large portions of it) in the
> language-of-the-day, and you won't be the last (even, or especially
> if it does get re-written in Python ;-)
I think you're overinterpreting. Trying for One Big Rewrite in language
X is almost never a good idea and I don't advocate it. Encouraging people
to migrate pieces as they feel motivated and resdy is a different matter.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Michael Haggerty, git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0WYiV3hTE7u28_Wd59FkGfu3o_psS0gocpnibzN4--Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> Of course, but there are experts in C and shell around, not so many
> python experts. So if somebody sneaks in a python program that makes
> use of features specific to python 2.7, I doubt anybody would notice.
I would.
> And if they did, I doubt that would be reason enough for rejection,
> supposing that porting to 2.6 would be difficult enough.
In cases like that, backporting is usually pretty easy. Been there, done that.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-25 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1oRpm4QkhcbfAuxK8UTZnuSVfNhAQnmUd1xiwhwLEqGw@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> Seems sensible, but I don't know what "rejection" would actually mean.
Why is this mysterious? We reject a patch when we don't choose to merge it.
> My "extensions" are on the way to the contrib area. Is the contrib
> area supposed to have different rules? I don't know.
I don't have a strong opinion about this. I lean towards looser rules
for contrib because, among other things, it's a place for experiments
and we disclaim responsibility for maintaining it. But requiring 2.6
compatibility for Python scripts is not really onerous.
> Too late.
I'd be happy to help you out by auditing them for version dependencies.
> I don't see what this means in practical terms. People are going to
> write code in whatever language they want to write code in. How
> exactly are "we" going to "encourage" them not to do that is not
> entirely clear to me.
One way is by having clear guidelines for good practice that *include*
Python, and tell people exactly what the requirements are.
> Subcommands are also probably more efficient in c. And lets remember
> that most people use git through the *official* subcommands.
See my remarks on the 80-20 rule elsewhere in the thread. Execessive
worship of "efficiency" is a great way to waste effort and pile up
hidden costs in maintainance problems.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2012-11-25 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric S. Raymond; +Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <20121125051809.GA3670@thyrsus.com>
Hi,
thank you Duy for thinking of Cc:ing the msysGit mailing list. We indeed
do not have a working Python in Git for Windows yet (mainly because I did
not review kusma's patch yet thanks to a non-fun-at-all side track).
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>:
> > These may apply to other languages as well. Where do we draw a line?
>
> I'm in favor of the general policy of avoiding scripting languages
> other than the top three most widely deployed.
It is one thing to allow users to use the scripting languages of their
choice to do their work.
It is a different thing completely to allow the core of an important piece
of software like Git to consist of a hodge podge of languages. There are
so many problems already, both technical and social ones [*1*], that I would
really like to caution against letting even more languages creep into the
core. It is bad enough already.
Ciao,
Dscho
Footnote [*1*]: Technical problems include serious performance issues on
Windows when using shell/Perl scripting (see the many, many complaints
about git-svn just as an example), portability problems (I am thankful
that Junio seems to insist at least on POSIX compatibility of shell
scripts still even if there are very vocal forces trying to get lazy on
that front).
And do not underestimate the social problems with *requiring* contributors
to know yet another language well just because you let a core part be
written in that language. There is even a rule of thumb: increase the
number of languages used in your program == halve the number of potential
contributors. And if you think that this is theoretical: look at the mails
we got about Git GUI being written in Tcl/Tk (hardly a difficult language
to learn) and losing contributors over it.
--
*** Please reply-to-all at all times ***
*** (do not pretend to know who is subscribed and who is not) ***
*** Please avoid top-posting. ***
The msysGit Wiki is here: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki - Github accounts are free.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "msysGit" group.
To post to this group, send email to msysgit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
msysgit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, and view previous threads, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msysgit?hl=en_US?hl=en
^ permalink raw reply
* Multiple threads of compression
From: Thorsten Glaser @ 2012-11-25 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi,
I’m asking here informally first, because my information relates
to a quite old version (the one from lenny-backports). A tl;dr
is at the end.
On a multi-core machine, the garbage collection of git, as well
as pack compression on the server side when someone clones a
repository remotely, the compression is normally done automatically
using multiple threads of execution.
That may be fine for your typical setups, but in my cases, I have
two scenarios where it isn’t:
ⓐ The machine where I want it to use only, say, 2 of my 4 or 8 cores
as I’m also running some VMs on the box which eat up a lot of CPU
and which I don’t want to slow down.
ⓑ The server VM which has been given 2 or 3 VCPUs to cope with all
the load done by clients, but which is RAM-constrained to only
512 or, when lucky, 768 MiB. It previously served only http/https
and *yuk* Subversion, but now, git comes into the play, and I’ve
seen the one server box I think about go down *HARD* because git
ate up all RAM *and* swap when someone wanted to update their clone
of a repository after someone else committed… well, an ~100 MiB large
binary file they shouldn’t. (It required manual intervention on the
server to kill that revision and then the objects coupled with it,
but even *that* didn’t work, read on for more.)
In both cases, I had to apply a quick hack. One I can reproduce
by now is, that, on the first box, I added a --threads=2 to the
line calling git pack-objects in /usr/lib/git-core/git-repack,
like this:
83 args="$args $local ${GIT_QUIET:+-q} $no_reuse$extra"
84 names=$(git pack-objects --threads=2 --keep-true-parents --honor-pack-
keep --non-empty --all --reflog $arg
85 exit 1
(By the way, wrapping source code at 80c is still way to go IMHO.)
On the second box, IIRC I added --threads=1, but that box got
subsequently upgraded from lenny to wheezy so any local modification
is lost (luckily, the problem didn’t occur again recently, or at
least I didn’t notice it, save for the VM load going up to 6-8
several times a day).
tl;dr: I would like to have a *global* option for git to restrict
the number of threads of execution it uses. Several subcommands,
like pack-objects, are already equipped with an optioin for this,
but unfortunately, these are seldom invoked by hand¹, so this can’t
work in my situations.
① automatic garbage collection, “git gc --aggressive --prune=now”,
and cloning are the use cases I have at hand right now.
À propos, while here: is gc --aggressive safe to run on a live,
online-shared repository, or does it break other users accessing
the repository concurrently? (If it’s safe I’d very much like to do
that in a, say weekly, cronjob on FusionForge, our hosting system.)
Thanks in advance!
//mirabilos
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] gitk tag delete/rename support
From: Leon KUKOVEC @ 2012-11-25 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Paul Mackerras
In-Reply-To: <7vzk26xkou.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, but I prefer not to take patches to gitk-git/ directly;
> could you prepare a patch against Paul's tree at
>
>
> git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
>
> and send it in that direction (paulus@) instead?
No problem. Will do that.
--
Best Regards,
Leon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Erik Faye-Lund @ 2012-11-25 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: Pat Thoyts, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <20121125103316.GA24514@thyrsus.com>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Pat Thoyts <patthoyts@gmail.com>:
>> Git for Windows simply ships everything we need to run git - so if a
>> desirable module requires a version of python, we will add that
>> version plus any required modules into the installer. We already have
>> a patch to provide python in the msysgit tree - it would just require
>> polishing up a little. I'm certain this is no problem for the other
>> windows port (cygwin) either.
>
> Thank you - I think this completely disposes of the "Windows is a blocker
> for scripting language X" argument, with the case X = Python in point.
As the one who wrote that patch; not at all. That patch is a horrible
mess, and it is not yet proven that the resulting python executable
works any more than a basic hello world.
--
*** Please reply-to-all at all times ***
*** (do not pretend to know who is subscribed and who is not) ***
*** Please avoid top-posting. ***
The msysGit Wiki is here: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki - Github accounts are free.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "msysGit" group.
To post to this group, send email to msysgit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
msysgit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, and view previous threads, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msysgit?hl=en_US?hl=en
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH master] convert: The native line-ending is \r\n on MinGW
From: Mr_and_Mrs_D @ 2012-11-25 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <7vbp8aqtuz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
I am on windows 7 Pro - mingwin
I decided to turn autocrlf to false and use .gitattributes instead and was
bitten by this bug :
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13531988/git-line-endings-renormalize-does-not-seem-to-checkout-the-right-line-endings
It took me 2 days to figure this out
Please fix
--
View this message in context: http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-v6-Add-core-eol-config-variable-tp5140844p7571889.html
Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Fix typo in remote set-head usage
From: Antoine Pelisse @ 2012-11-25 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: tim.henigan, Antoine Pelisse
parenthesis are not matching in `builtin_remote_sethead_usage`
as a square bracket is closing something never opened.
---
This will also break all translation files, should I also send a patch
to update them ?
Cheers,
Antoine Pelisse
builtin/remote.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
index a5a4b23..937484d 100644
--- a/builtin/remote.c
+++ b/builtin/remote.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static const char * const builtin_remote_rm_usage[] = {
};
static const char * const builtin_remote_sethead_usage[] = {
- N_("git remote set-head <name> (-a | -d | <branch>])"),
+ N_("git remote set-head <name> (-a | -d | <branch>)"),
NULL
};
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Stefano Lattarini @ 2012-11-25 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Lang; +Cc: Eric S. Raymond, Michael Haggerty, Felipe Contreras, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1211250344360.32333@nftneq.ynat.uz>
Hi David. One minor but important correction ...
On 11/25/2012 12:51 PM, David Lang wrote:
>
> You may think that C and Bash are poor choices, but that is what the
> community is familar with.
>
Actually, it is C and POSIX shell -- not merely bash. Indeed, the shell
code in Git is expected to work with the Solaris Korn shell, the BSD
/bin/sh, the dash shell (which is now the default /bin/sh on Debian and
Ubuntu), etc.
(Oh, and on the python vs. C vs. shell diatribe I'm mostly neutral,
mostly because I'm no Git developer, and I have no "cents to throw").
Regards,
Stefano
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: David Lang @ 2012-11-25 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric S. Raymond; +Cc: Michael Haggerty, Felipe Contreras, git
In-Reply-To: <20121125105707.GA25212@thyrsus.com>
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>:
>> There is, of course, the awkward issue of how/when to transition to
>> Python 3.x, which is *not* backwards compatible with Python 2.x. I
>> expect that when the time comes there will be volunteers (myself
>> included) willing to help adapt Python scripts to the new version, but
>> the problem shouldn't be minimized.
>
> 2to3 actually does a pretty good job. It doesn't reduce the
> transition cost to zero, but I find it does reduce that cost to an
> easily manageable level even on quite large codebases.
>
>> It would be insane to rewrite performance-critical C code in any
>> scripting language, but there is a huge penumbra of code that is not
>> performance critical and that mutates rapidly.
>
> Indeed. In the git architecture there is a pretty clear dividing line -
> to a first approximation, plumbing should remain C but porcelain should
> probably not. (Not that I am advocating forcing such a move - but it would
> be good to allow it to happen.)
>
> The 80-20 rule (80% of the execution time is spent in 20% of the code)
> helps us here. The *other* 80% of the code can move to a scripting
> language with no significant performance loss. To find out what needs
> to stay in C, run a profiler!
Remember that old code is tested code. The mere act of re-writing it from
scratch is likely to introduce new bugs due to 'simplifications' by the person
re-writing the code.
If a particular piece of code has a track record of being buggy, this may be
overwelmed by the fresh start and new attention (plus whatever theoretical
advantage any particular language provides), but unless it's suspect, re-writing
it for the sole reason of changing the language is unlikely to be a win.
In addition, a good programmer working in a 'bad' language that they are very
familiar with is going to write better code than that same programmer would
write in a 'good' language that they are not familiar with.
I git, the programmers are very familiar with C and Bash, but far less familiar
with either Perl or Python (although from what I see, far more familiar with
Perl than Python)
If it's something going into contrib, where the core developers are not needing
to maintain it, the language it's written in matters far less than if it's
something that's going to be in the core. If it's in the core, it needs to be in
a language that the core developers are comforatable with.
You may think that C and Bash are poor choices, but that is what the community
is familar with.
You are far from the first person to say that git should be re-written (or at
least large portions of it) in the language-of-the-day, and you won't be the
last (even, or especially if it does get re-written in Python ;-)
David Lang
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-25 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <20121125095429.GB22279@thyrsus.com>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
>> > Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>:
>> >> These may apply to other languages as well. Where do we draw a line?
>> >
>> > I'm in favor of the general policy of avoiding scripting languages
>> > other than the top three most widely deployed. At the moment that
>> > means shell, Python, Perl; on present trends, in a few years Perl
>> > (dropping in popularity) might be passed by Ruby on the way up.
>>
>> Top three according to whom?
>
> According to the LOC counts in git's codebase.
Not according to ohloh:
1) shell 33%
2) tcl 9%
3) perl 9.7%
4) python 1.8%
And this is a non-sequitur; you are proposing to change git policies
based on numbers that are a direct result of git's policies?
https://www.ohloh.net/p/git/analyses/latest/languages_summary
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-25 11:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Haggerty; +Cc: Eric S. Raymond, git
In-Reply-To: <50B1F684.5020805@alum.mit.edu>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 09:53 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
>>> 1) In 2012, we can specify a "floor" Python version of 2.6 (shipped in
>>> 2008) and be pretty much guaranteed it will be anywhere we want to
>>> deploy except Windows. Windows will remain a problem because Python
>>> isn't part of the stock install, but that's an equal or worse problem
>>> for shell and Perl - and at least the Python project ships a binary
>>> installer for Windows.
>>
>> What if my extension only supports python 2.7? Or what if my extension
>> wants to support 2.0?
>
> There would obviously have to be a policy like "all Python code in core
> git must run on any Python interpreter with 2.6 <= version < 3.0", just
> as there are policies about what C and shell features are allowed. If
> you happen to want to support earlier versions of Python, I don't see
> why anybody would stop you as long as your code also runs in the
> mandated versions.
Of course, but there are experts in C and shell around, not so many
python experts. So if somebody sneaks in a python program that makes
use of features specific to python 2.7, I doubt anybody would notice.
And if they did, I doubt that would be reason enough for rejection,
supposing that porting to 2.6 would be difficult enough.
Anyway, I think this is all guesswork.
> Of course Perl will have the same problem if Perl6 ever materializes.
It *might*, it might not be as severe.
>>> 2) Python extension commands should test the Python version on startup
>>> and die loudly but gracefully in the rare case that they don't find
>>> what they need.
>>
>> Yes, they should _if_ they know what version they need. In my
>> extensions I really have no idea.
>
> Then simply (with the help of the mailing list) ensure that your
> extensions run under 2.6 (or whatever the chosen minimum version is) and
> everything will be OK. It is not an error to specify 2.6 as the minimum
> version even though your script happens also to run on older versions :-)
Who would do that? I don't see a lot of people.
>>> 3) We should be unconditionally be encouraging extensions to move
>>> from shell and Perl to Python. This would be a clear net gain is
>>> portability and maintainability.
>>
>> NO! It's up to the developer to choose what language to use, and I
>> find it very chauvinist of you to say "python is better, so let's all
>> use python". So far you have listed a few advantages of python, but
>> you haven't explained so far what is wrong with shell and perl.
>
> Given that some languages are accepted in git-core and others are not,
> it's already not "up to the developer to choose what language to use".
> At best there is a short list of "blessed" languages, and the developer
> can choose among only those.
They are not because they haven't been proposed. Things change.
>> In fact, while advancing python you have made clear a problem with
>> python; the version requirements. So far I have *never* encountered a
>> problem with git because of my bash version, or my perl version. And
>> we haven't touched to the python3 mess yet. To me, those are
>> advantages of shell and perl.
>
> On the contrary, there is *constant* traffic on the mailing list about
> incompatibilities between different shell implementations (sh, dash,
> bash, etc), not to mention those in other utilities (sed, grep, etc)
> that one is forced to work with in shell scripts. Compatibility is a
> *huge* pain when developing shell code for git. The fact that users
> typically don't encounter such problems is due to the hard work of POSIX
> lawyers on the mailing list correcting the compatibility errors of
> mortal programmers.
*Theoretical* incompatibilities on probably obscure systems. *I* have
never seen such compatibility issues *in practice*.
>> Actually, I don't care if 'git foo' is written in perl, or shell, or
>> c; as long as it *works*. And I would hate it if 'git rebase' ever
>> told me that I need a newer version of python, or worst; that I don't
>> have python in my system (Arch Linux ships 'python2', not 'python').
>
> The configure script would locate the correct interpreter and the build
> would adjust the scripts' shebang lines, just as things are tweaked
> within Perl scripts at build time.
Arch Linux doesn't use no configure script. And what if I'm building
git myself (I've hit the issue multiple times)? Perl might have
similar issues on other systems, but not on Arch Linux; /usr/bin/perl
is there.
>>> 4) We should be encouraging C code to move to Python, too. There's
>>> little gain in portability on this path because modern C has cleaned
>>> up its act a lot, but the drop in expected bug loads would be well
>>> worth the porting effort. Segfaults are not your friend, and the x2 to
>>> x5 drop in line count would do very good things for long-term
>>> maintainability.
>>
>> Definitely NO! I really really doubt git in python would be able to
>> achieve the same performance as git in c, but to show me wrong, it
>> wouldn't be very difficult to run a few measurements with python
>> dulwich *if* we are even to begin considering this point.
>>
>> And are segmentation faults really that different from python's
>> exceptions? Not to the user.
>
> There is one huge difference: it C it is all too easy to write code that
> leads to a security hole due to buffer overflows and other memory
> management errors. Code written in a scripting language are largely
> immune to such problems (except of course for any such bugs in the
> interpreter itself, but the testing of the interpreter is shared across
> many projects and users).
>
> It would be insane to rewrite performance-critical C code in any
> scripting language, but there is a huge penumbra of code that is not
> performance critical and that mutates rapidly. Such code is much easier
> to write and maintain in a sane scripting language if the portability
> issues can be mastered.
I think git developers are perfectly able to write such a code.
> The most important issues to consider when imagining a future with a
> hybrid of code in C and some scripting language "X" are:
>
> * Portability: is "X" available on all platforms targeted by git, in
> usable and mutually-compatible versions?
>
> * Startup time: Is the time to start the "X" interpreter prohibitive?
> (On my computer, "python -c pass", which starts the Python
> interpreter and does nothing, takes about 24ms.) This overhead would
> be incurred by every command that is not pure C.
Agree.
> * Should the scripting language access the C functionality only by
> calling pure-C executables or by dynamically or statically linking to
> a binary module interface? If the former, then the granularity of
> interactions between "X" and C is necessarily coarse, and "X" cannot
> be used to implement anything but the outermost layer of
> functionality. If the latter, then the way would be clear to
> implement much more of git in "X" (and lua would also be worth
> considering).
I think this is very far fetched at the moment. Proposals such as
libgit2 are moving things forward, but we are pretty far from a goal
like that.
> * Learning curve for developers: how difficult is it for a typical git
> developer to become conversant with "X", considering both (1) how
> likely is it that the typical git developer already knows "X" and
> (2) how straightforward and predictable is the language "X"?
> In this category I think that Python has a huge advantage over
> Perl, though certainly opinions will differ and Ruby would also be
> a contender.
Right, but I have the feeling that most git developers are perfectly
familiar with C already. In order to move to something else, and all
the necessary burden of learning, or becoming more familiar with X, a
compelling argument must be put forward, and I haven't seen such an
argument.
> Personally, I regret wasting my time programming pointer arithmetic in
> git modules that are not performance-critical (and correcting bugs by
> others in these areas). And I'm tired of having an idea to improve a
> git feature only to find that it is implemented in shell, where not even
> arrays are available. I would therefore welcome more friendliness
> towards a decent scripting language in the git project.
Me too, if ruby was one of them.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy @ 2012-11-25 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Haggerty; +Cc: Felipe Contreras, Eric S. Raymond, git
In-Reply-To: <50B1F684.5020805@alum.mit.edu>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On the contrary, there is *constant* traffic on the mailing list about
> incompatibilities between different shell implementations (sh, dash,
> bash, etc), not to mention those in other utilities (sed, grep, etc)
> that one is forced to work with in shell scripts. Compatibility is a
> *huge* pain when developing shell code for git. The fact that users
> typically don't encounter such problems is due to the hard work of POSIX
> lawyers on the mailing list correcting the compatibility errors of
> mortal programmers.
I think we still are in the process of moving away from shell-based
commands (not the shell interface), just not enough man power to do it
fast. The only shell-based command with active development is
git-submodule. So most shell PITA is in the test suite.
> The most important issues to consider when imagining a future with a
> hybrid of code in C and some scripting language "X" are:
>
> * Portability: is "X" available on all platforms targeted by git, in
> usable and mutually-compatible versions?
>
> * Startup time: Is the time to start the "X" interpreter prohibitive?
> (On my computer, "python -c pass", which starts the Python
> interpreter and does nothing, takes about 24ms.) This overhead would
> be incurred by every command that is not pure C.
>
> * Should the scripting language access the C functionality only by
> calling pure-C executables or by dynamically or statically linking to
> a binary module interface? If the former, then the granularity of
> interactions between "X" and C is necessarily coarse, and "X" cannot
> be used to implement anything but the outermost layer of
> functionality. If the latter, then the way would be clear to
> implement much more of git in "X" (and lua would also be worth
> considering).
>
> * Learning curve for developers: how difficult is it for a typical git
> developer to become conversant with "X", considering both (1) how
> likely is it that the typical git developer already knows "X" and
> (2) how straightforward and predictable is the language "X"?
> In this category I think that Python has a huge advantage over
> Perl, though certainly opinions will differ and Ruby would also be
> a contender.
* We might also need an embedded language variant, like Jeff's lua
experiment. I'd be nice if "X" can also take this role.
--
Duy
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox