Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Housing historical implementations seems like it would just lead to > out-of-date and non-functional examples. I agree. Although that ought to be rare in principle, given that one advertised feature of git is that the plumbing is supposed to be stable, we occasionally had to have to subtly break things to improve plumbing and at the same time run around to make sure that all the script users (both in-tree and out-of-tree like Cogito, gitweb and StGIT) are updated. >> - Learn the itches David and other people have, that the >> current git Porcelain-ish does not scratch well, and enrich >> Documentation/technical with real-world working scripts built >> around plumbing. > > I think this is a better approach. I think it also makes sense to > let people know that it's an acceptable approach to start new features > as shell and then have them mature to C (looking at the current > codebase, and some of Dscho's rantings, one might get the impression > that git isn't accepting new shell scripts). New commands like pickaxe and for-each-ref were easier to code in C, and cherry rewrite in C was really about how crufty the shell script version was from the beginning (and there weren't in-tree users of it left so it was not maintained at all but thanks to plumbing being stable it just kept working perhaps correctly but still horribly). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html