On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:38:02PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:08 PM, John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> wrote: > > > > I had a look at porting to libgit2 about a year ago and it mostly isn't > > too bad. IIRC the only problematic area is the graph output which we > > currently get from libgit.a but would have to do ourselves if we switch > > to libgit2. > > Are there any downsides of doing this? I know we've put a lot of work > into cozying up with internal git utility functions and their build > system. Would we have to reimplement a lot of this? Would it be worth > it? Are there general benefits of using libgit2 over what we have now? > Are there general downsides?
Given the CGit and Git are both GPLv2, we could always just take strbuf.[ch] and the argv-array bits from git.git and copy them into CGit. Likewise the test suite could switch to using Sharness with very little effort. So I don't think the recent changes towards using more bits of Git actually have too much impact here. > More importantly, is this something you would be willing to do, if we > decided it was the best direction? I won't have time to do this in the near future. The first step in this direction may actually be useful even if we stick with embedding libgit.a. Re-writing the commit graph drawing ourselves could allow prettier output than the ASCII we inherit from Git. _______________________________________________ CGit mailing list CGit@lists.zx2c4.com http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit