On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[email protected]> wrote: > The RAT repository might certainly a place to go.
I don't know if I have the appropriate commit bits. Should I just try and see what happens? (In other words, should I take your comment as permission to start committing there?) :) > But, beg your pardon, what's so "heavy-weight" with RAT? I can't see > any advantages of a Python implementation, other than it would be > preferrable to Python developers. In our discussion, Robert and I observed that improving and extending RAT as it is today can be quite a chore. He explained the origins of RAT as "and experiment in software architecture" and that it had horribly gone wrong. The architecture is way over-engineered for the core mission of RAT, but because the tool proved useful, it was adopted anyway. mouse is an attempt to greatly reduce the amount of code needed to accomplish that mission, and be much easier to extend down the road. Another goal of mouse is to be easily incorporated into a post-commit hook, so that it could audit the files being modified during each commit. I'm sure Robert (the original RAT author) could explain these feelings more deeply than I can. When a major contributor of a tool suggests it ought to be replaced, that's a useful indicator for me. :) -Hyrum > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Hyrum K. Wright > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Last week, over lunch here at TransferSummit, Robert Donkin and I had >> conversation in which I (rather delusionally) wondered about the >> possibility of replacing RAT with a much lighter-weight tool, written >> in Python ("mouse"). >> >> I've since started hacking this tool, and would like to employ the >> power of version control, as well as additional eyes, in helping to >> develop it. >> >> Where shall I check such a tool into the repository? >> >> -Hyrum >> > > > > -- > Germanys national anthem is the most boring in the world - how telling! >
