On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:13:19PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > > I'm currently evaluating what the final tool would look like. I'm *very* > > tempted to implement it in C, based on core git code, because there are > > many things that this helper does that would be so much easier to do > > with direct access to git's guts. And that wouldn't require more > > dependencies than git currently has: it would "just" need curl and ssh, > > and git already uses both. > > > > If I were to go in that direction, would you consider integrating it > > in git core? > > Yes --- I would like this a lot. I'm concerned that this tool will have drawbacks that Felipe's remote-hg does not. And I can well imagine that it may, as that tool builds on Mercurial's API, which will probably handle some corner cases differently. This isn't to disparage Mike's attempt; it will probably have some upsides, too. But given that the approaches are so different, it does not seem obvious to me that one will always be better than the other. One of the nice things about spinning remote-hg out of the core repo is that it means we do not have to endorse a particular implementation, and they can compete with each other on their merits. I would very much hate to see Felipe's remote-hg project wither and die just because another implementation becomes the de facto standard by being included in git.git. It's a proven tool, and this new thing is not yet. It's a shame that both squat on the name "remote-hg", because it makes it difficult to tell the two apart. But of course that is the only way to make "git clone hg::..." work. Maybe we need a layer of indirection? :) > - libgit.a in its current state evolves too quickly for it to be > convenient for out-of-tree tools to use. cgit <http://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/> > uses git pinned to a particular version as a submodule to get around > this, which is fussy and has bad implications for remembering to > get security updates. I'm not sure that this approach is any better than carrying something in contrib/ in git.git. If I refactor a function in libgit.a, I notice breakage in the callers because it no longer compiles, or because I am thorough and look at the implications to git callers. I do _not_ want to be responsible for making sure that contrib/* still builds. That is the problem of the maintainer of the contrib/ project in question. That may sound a little selfish, but I think that is what it means to be in contrib, and not in the regular tree. So once you realize that is the burden of the contrib/ author to fix breakages, then the process is: git pull cd contrib/c-remote-hg make # oops, it broke fix fix fix That is not any different than: git submodule add git... git submodule update make # oops, it broke fix fix fix The hard part is not how you pull changes from the new git into your tree. It is the fact that upstream may be breaking the interface behind your back. And your best bet is to aggressively merge with upstream, rather than trying to track only occasional release versions. Of course, if you meant to _really_ carry it in-tree, not in contrib/, then none of that applies. But then I worry doubly about the "endorsement" issue. -Peff -- 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