RE: missing: git api, reference, user manual and mission statement
Petr Baudis graced us with: > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:36:32PM CEST, I got a letter > where Klaus Robert Suetterlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > 1) There is no clear (e.g. by name) distinction between ``git as done > > by Linus'', which is a kind of content addressable database with added > > semantics, and ``git as done by the rest of You'', which is a kind of > > SCM on top of Linuses stuff. > > There is git and git-pasky (git-pasky is superset; therefore various > patches floating around either get to git-pasky or to both). I'm not > sure what else do you mean. This goes back to the question of whether to rename git-pasky to cogito. Perhaps the crucial question is: will the git plumbing be used for anything other than SCM? If so, then it could be useful to differentiate by program name, so that we would know whether another project was utilizing git-plumbing or git-SCM. If not, then there is effectively only one tool and the plumbing is a [crucial] portion thereof: a git (SCM and the file system around which it was built). So what's the answer to the question? Anyone planning to use git (the file system) outside of the SCM? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: missing: git api, reference, user manual and mission statement
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:36:32PM CEST, I got a letter where Klaus Robert Suetterlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > 1) There is no clear (e.g. by name) distinction between ``git as done > by Linus'', which is a kind of content addressable database with added > semantics, and ``git as done by the rest of You'', which is a kind of > SCM on top of Linuses stuff. There is git and git-pasky (git-pasky is superset; therefore various patches floating around either get to git-pasky or to both). I'm not sure what else do you mean. > 2) For Linuses stuff I dare to say that it is an evil hack from > hell. A prototype come alive. This is not meant as an insult; I > guess Linus agrees. I don't think it's evil at all. Why should it? > I do think there should be a well defined API or UI so that the > backend could be replaced / changed / improved as need dictates. It's stabilizing. Mind you, it's 2 weeks old. > 3) As of the gitSCM stuff, I really miss any kind of description > how it works. That is it completely lacks any concept, except for > ``we will use gitLinus as backend''. Have you read the README? If you have any questions, go ahead and ask. _Write_ the description if you miss it. > 4) Concerning usability on systems other than Linux... I guess > this one can be ignored by most. > > The source still uses st->st_mtim.tv_nsec which should be ->st_mtimensec, I > guess. Patches welcome. > git is implemented as mostly sh shell scripts. > gitdiff-do and gitlog.sh rely on bash, more precisely on /bin/bash. > git pull uses rsync > ... > > The list of dependencies is long and growing. So if the intent of > doing gitSCM with shell scripts was to make it portable: that goal was missed. I think the way to go now that it's working and we are to add some sweet cream on it is to rewrite it in Perl. I have some parts in progress already. > 5) gitLinus as library. > > First I have to say that between what I saw in git-0.04 and the > current stuff from git-pasky there has been quite a lot of work to > get further away from the evil prototype. > > Still gitLinus lacks a clear definition of its interface, so I > guess no one will be able to tell if it works correct. How could You > do a test case without knowing > a) what the software should do and > b) how You should tell it? You couldn't. UTSL now and write the docs and the testcases, or wait a while. > And of course there are still memory leaks. The obvious > --- i.e. malloc and (missing) free in the same function --- I found > while reading the git-0.04 source yesterday are gone. Still I found > one of the ``malloc in called function no free in caller'' leaks > in git-pasky as pulled NOW. And all I did was `grep malloc *'. > Someone should sit down and read all the source top to bottom. And > the software should either check its resource usage or someone > should use a good tool on it. "Someone"? Again, patches welcome. The patches are likely usually no big deal now, though. I'm by all means for fixing them, especially when git will start to head towards libgit. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: missing: git api, reference, user manual and mission statement
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Kevin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Git is very immature, and currently should only be used by brave >>pioneers. About the only way for a mortal to even try git is to stick >>to git-pasky releases, and not try to track all the patches flying >>around. > > hey, it's a 2 weeks old project, but it's certainly one of the > fastest-growing projects i've ever seen: it has so much steam that it's > scary :) It seems that a true emergency focused a massive, spontaneous > concentration of OSS development power. Absolutely! I'm totally impressed with the progress so far. Kevin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: missing: git api, reference, user manual and mission statement
* Kevin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Klaus Robert Suetterlin wrote: > > 1) There is no clear (e.g. by name) distinction between ``git as done > > by Linus'', which is a kind of content addressable database with added > > semantics, and ``git as done by the rest of You'', which is a kind of > > SCM on top of Linuses stuff. > > I also see this as one of the biggest obstacles right now. It would be > very helpful if we could achieve the clear separation between git and > non-git that has been part of the design since the beginning. > > Git is very immature, and currently should only be used by brave > pioneers. About the only way for a mortal to even try git is to stick > to git-pasky releases, and not try to track all the patches flying > around. hey, it's a 2 weeks old project, but it's certainly one of the fastest-growing projects i've ever seen: it has so much steam that it's scary :) It seems that a true emergency focused a massive, spontaneous concentration of OSS development power. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: missing: git api, reference, user manual and mission statement
Klaus Robert Suetterlin wrote: > 1) There is no clear (e.g. by name) distinction between ``git as done > by Linus'', which is a kind of content addressable database with added > semantics, and ``git as done by the rest of You'', which is a kind of > SCM on top of Linuses stuff. I also see this as one of the biggest obstacles right now. It would be very helpful if we could achieve the clear separation between git and non-git that has been part of the design since the beginning. Git is very immature, and currently should only be used by brave pioneers. About the only way for a mortal to even try git is to stick to git-pasky releases, and not try to track all the patches flying around. > Linus must have had an idea of the final product, and how to use > that. The real day to day workflow. The best description I have seen so far is the README for git-pasky: http://pasky.or.cz/~pasky/dev/git/ It's not a bad mini-tutorial, really. > I really believe a lot of questions on the git mailing list could > be answered if there was a user manual and a reference for git. > Even before all of it will be implemented. As you know, documentation is a great way for non-coders to contribute to a project. Until someone steps up to write it, it won't happen. In a highly iterative development process like this one, it actually doesn't make sense to write the docs first. You really don't know how it should work until you code it, play with it, and then realize it should be doing something different. > The list of dependencies is long and growing. So if the intent of > doing gitSCM with shell scripts was to make it portable: that goal was missed. I think the main goal was rapid implementation. I totally expect there to be one or several wrappers, written in various languages, that will eventually replace git-pasky. > Still gitLinus lacks a clear definition of its interface, so I > guess no one will be able to tell if it works correct. How could You > do a test case without knowing > a) what the software should do and > b) how You should tell it? I agree that it would be nice to have automated unit tests. > And of course there are still memory leaks. The code is still young, and these will be fixed. I'm not bothered that there are leaks at this moment. I am a bit bothered by Linus's attitude that some small leaks might not ever need to be fixed. Kevin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
