Hi Đoàn
On 12/05/2021 01:29, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
On 2021-05-10 15:25:07+0900, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I think others have strong opinion on not using "%1$s",
and prefer simple "%s" and using "exec_path" twice instead.
I brought it up only because I hadn't seen it in Git sources, and
wasn't sure if we'd want to start using it. Aside from Ævar, who
seemed reasonably in favor of it, nobody else chimed in, so it could
go either way, I suppose.
If this were a piece of code that _everybody_ would use on _all_ the
supported platforms, I would suggest declaring that this is a
weather-balloon to see if some platforms have trouble using it. But
unfortunately this is not such a piece of code. Dependence on
systemd should strictly be opt-in.
Yes, dependence on systemd should be strictly opt-in.
Although, I don't use systemd-based distro, so it is irrelevant to me.
I think it's none of Git (the project) business to decide which
scheduler should be given higher priority. It's crontab when
maintenance was introduced, it should be crontab, now.
You seem to be simultaneously arguing that git should be neutral on the
choice of scheduler while saying it should prioritize crontab. The
commit message and cover letter list a number of difficulties with the
strategy of prioritizing crontab over systemd when both are installed. I
think we should aim for the solution that has the most chance of working
without user intervention.
Another point for eternal bikeshedding: why do we limit ourselves in
crontab and systemd, how about other homebrew schedulers? What should
we do if another scheduler raise to be the big star in the scheduler
world?
We should support the default scheduler on each platform - that was the
rod we made for our own back when we decided to use the platform's
scheduler rather than having a cross platform git maintenance daemon. It
just happens that there are two possible default schedulers on linux so
we need to support both of them.
Best Wishes
Phillip
I guess we should take some templates for running on {,un}register
instead? However, I think such design may open another can of worms.
So, I don't know.
