On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 05:24:14PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > This "unified review storage format" really does seem to be the missing
> > piece.
> FWIW I do not think so. The real trick will be to come up with an
> improvement to the process that lets Junio and Peff continue to work as
> before, because It Works For Them, while at the same time letting other
> people (such as myself) use easy-to-configure tools that add substantial
> Which, to me, means that the missing piece is a clever idea how to
> integrate with the mail-based process, without requiring everybody and her
> dog to switch to a specific mail client.
Fair enough, yes it seems to me that git's own review process
is probably a separate discussion.
As far as review tools such as git-appraise, git-series and git-candidate
are concerned, the review storage format really is the missing piece though,
in my opinion,
at least if we want to live in a world with compatible review tooling.
> > The tool I've been working on for the past year (git-candidate) was
> > initially aimed at contrib, and was written in perl solely to satisfy
> > contrib rules. It would have been python otherwise.
> $ git ls-files contrib/\*.py | wc -l
> And for that matter:
> $ git ls-files contrib/\*.go | wc -l
I read this guide before I started, and wanted to be on the safe side.
Maybe that was a mistake... :/
> In fact, there are even PHP scripts:
> $ git ls-files contrib | sed -n 's/.*\.//p' | sort | grep -v '.....' |
> uniq | tr '\n' ' '
> bash c el Git go perl php pl pm py rst sh tcsh txt zsh
> But again, I do not think that it makes sense to focus too much on a
> language, or on a file format, before we came up with a strategy how to
> *not* require everybody to change their current ways.
Fair enough. :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html