Hi, On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote: > > Except that zucchini is meant for the sequencer, which can implement it > > much more efficiently (i.e. it does not have to check out HEAD~$n). Also, > > it must not rely on reflogs being enabled. > > > > sequencer is plumbing, while the reset mantra is porcelain. > > Do I get you right, that the builtin sequencer must not use any of the > porcelain like cherry-pick, reset and even commit? AFAIAC cherry-pick and reset, and even commit, are not "pure" porcelain: you can rely on their exit code and to a certain extent on their output. Although I would rather use commit-tree from a script than commit. I'd probably even use git update-ref instead of reset --soft, but then, I _would_ use cherry-pick. So there is a lot of gray. > (Perhaps I got it wrong, but it doesn't seem "right" to me, if a > plumbing uses porcelain.) > > Currently my prototype *uses* these porcelain, so is it a porcelain in > its current state? ;) I would say as long as it is meant to be used by a human, it is porcelain. And I do not think that git-sequencer falls into that category. So it should avoid pure porcelains, such as "git show", and use the (robust) low-level tools instead. But I feel quite silly talking about that at length; I think that you can use whatever gets a prototype done, and then go on and make it a builtin. 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
