Hi Ævar, On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:53 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31 2019, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > What's the future? (Core command of git.git? place it in contrib? keep it > > in a separate repo?) I'm hoping to discuss that at the contributor summit > > today, but feedback on the list is also welcome. > > Some of this I may have mentioned at the summit, but here for the list: > > * I think it should be a candidate for a core (not "just contrib") > git.git command, given that we have someone willing to maintain it & > deal with bugs etc. I'm not worried about that given the author. > > * It's unfortunate in terms of API we need to support going forward that > this obligates us to support a fairly intricate python API going > forward, so it's similar (but more detailed) to Git.pm (which I also > tried to get rid of as an external API a while ago). > > However, as you correctly note that's the only way a command like this > can be really fast, we already have the "no special API" command with > git-filter-branch, and that's horribly slow. > > But perhaps there's ways we can in advance deal with a potential > future breaking API change. E.g. some Pythonic way of versioning the > API, or just prominently documenting whatever (low?) stability > guarantees we're making. > > I imagine if we need to make breaking changes in the future that'll > less big of a deal than in other cases, since we'd expect the API use > to be one-off migration scripts, although maybe it'll get used for > all-the-time exports (e.g. mirroring internal->external repos with > filtering). > > * The rest of our commands are hooked up to the i18n framework. I don't > think this should be a blocker, but it's worth thinking about what the > plan for this is. > > Are we going to need the equivalent of Git::I18N for Python (which > presumably will be a run-time dependency on something needing the > Python API that links to gettext). > > Or perhaps we could do the translated strings in C, by making the > program you're invoking be a C command, invoking the Python part as a > helper (which would need to re-invoke a helper if it prints its own > messages). > > Thanks for working on this! Good points. I'll dig in to the i18n story. As you point out, the API stability may be tricky, but you may be right that we just need to prominently document whatever guarantee we want to make and that it's designed more for one-off migration scripts than continuing exports.
