Hi, On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > > > Personally, I would prefer an approach of using an embedded script > > interpreter: then language incompatibilities become a non-issue. > > git-busybox sounded like a great idea for portability. > > Indeed. And while the conversion of some script into C was the right > thing to do performance wise, many other scripts are hardly performance > critical. What is wrong with going from shell to C? C _is_ portable. Instead of relying on _yet_ another scripting language, introducing _yet_ another language that people have to learn to hack git, introducing _yet_ another place for bugs to hide, why not just admit that shell is nice for _prototyping_? Why do we have to to have the same discussion over and over and over again? > The current scripting ability will never go away. But it is less and > less used meaning that scripting could never be a dependable ability on > all platforms if the current trend continues. That is just not true. The regular git hackers, you included, will always use scripts (or alias versions of them), so there is not much chance that scriptability will be hurt by builtinification. > > If the scripting engine of choice for cobbling together prototypes > > remains the Unix toolchain outside of git proper, then Windows users > > will _always_ remain second class citizens since they will get to work > > with and on new porcelain much later than the rest of the world: > > namely when somebody bothers porting his new favorite tool for them to > > C. > > Right. And not making the scripts builtins helps Windows users how, exactly? Ciao, Dscho - 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
