j...@keeping.me.uk wrote on Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:16 +0000:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> > On 01/30/2013 09:31 PM, John Keeping wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:05:10AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> > >> [...] maybe we should establish a small Python library of
> > >> compatibility utilities (like a small "six"). [...]
> > >> But I haven't had time to think of where to put such a library, how to
> > >> install it, etc.
> > >
> > > If we want to go that route, I think restructuring the
> > > "git_remote_helpers" directory and re-using its infrastructure for
> > > installing the "Git Python modules" would be the way to go. The
> > > directory structure would become something like this:
> > >
> > > git/
> > > `-- python/
> > > |-- Makefile # existing file pulled out of git_remote_helpers
> > > |-- < some new utility library >
> > > |-- git_remote_helpers
> > > | |-- __init__.py
> > > | |-- git
> > > | | |-- __init__.py
> > > | | |-- exporter.py
> > > | | |-- git.py
> > > | | |-- importer.py
> > > | | |-- non_local.py
> > > | | `-- repo.py
> > > | `-- util.py
> > > |-- setup.cfg # existing file pulled out of git_remote_helpers
> > > `-- setup.py # existing file pulled out of git_remote_helpers
> > >
> > >
> > > It looks like the GitPython project as already taken the "git" module
> > > name, so perhaps we should use "git_core" if we do introduce a new
> > > module.
> > >
> > >  http://pypi.python.org/pypi/GitPython
> > This sounds reasonable. But not all Python code will go under the
> > "python" subdirectory, right? For example, I am working on a Python
> > script that fits thematically under contrib/hooks.
> I was thinking of it as analagous with the "perl" directory that
> currently exists. So the "python" directory will contain library code
> but scripts can live wherever is most appropriate.
> One way of looking at it is: could the user want to have this installed
> for all available versions of Python? For a script, the answer is "no"
> because they will call it and it will just run. For libraries, you want
> them to be available with whatever Python interpreter you happen to be
> running (assuming that it is a version supported by the library).
> > OTOH (I'm thinking aloud here) it is probably a bad idea for a hook
> > script to depend on a Python module that is part of git itself. Doing
> > so would make the hook script depend on a particular version of git (or
> > at least a version with a compatible Python module). But users might be
> > reluctant to upgrade git just to install a hook script.
> I don't think such a dependency is a bad idea in the longer term. If a
> "Git Python library" is developed, then at some point most people who
> have Git installed will have some version of that library - it becomes a
> case of perhaps wanting to limit yourself to some subset of the library
> rather than just not using it.
> In fact, git_remote_helpers has been available since Git 1.7.0 and
> contains a lot of functionality that is more generic than its name
This library idea would be a great help; there are 100-odd calls
to git in git-p4, and we've had to deal with getting the arguments
and parsing correct. I'd happily switch to using git_core.
Probably some elements of GitPython can be used too. I'm not so
interested in the raw database manipulation, but the command
wrappers look reasonable.
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