Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Correct. The opinions of inactive community members and
non-contributors are less useful.
I humbly suggest to treat other people's contribution with the same
respect you want yours' to be treated.
What?! When did I disrespect other people's contributions?
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Do you think that the opinions of
inactive community members and non-contributors are _more_ valuable
than those of active contributors, or am I missing something?
I am not Dscho, but it probably is worth saying this anyway.
6d297f81373e
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:
As one of the people who helps maintain git packages in pkgsrc, my
initial reaction is
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer pool for code written in a new language _must_ be
seeded by some from the current set of reviewers whose judgement
I/we can
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer pool for code written in a new language _must_
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:
As
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Felipe Contreras
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
but how many people on this
list understand git design and limits _and_
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 08:20:28AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
There are a lot of static variables in builtin/ (and outside too),
which make it non-entrant, or at least not safe.
So?
fork provides a process space isolation, some depend on that.
Process space isolation from what?
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:40:19PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
These are problems that can be solved. But there is a lot of work
involved in finding these subtle bugs and coming up with fixes. I think
you would be better off working on an implementation of git that was
designed from
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:40:19PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
These are problems that can be solved. But there is a lot of work
involved in finding these subtle bugs and coming up with fixes. I think
you would be better off
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 08:17:08PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
No, I didn't say that at all.
Then you truly think libgit2 will ever reach the point where it can
replace libgit.a?
I don't know. It may. Or something like it may. It is certainly not
ready to do so yet, but perhaps one day
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 08:17:08PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
No, I didn't say that at all.
Then you truly think libgit2 will ever reach the point where it can
replace libgit.a?
I don't know. It may. Or something like it
Hi Ram,
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Also we heard from no regular/high-value reviewers that they feel
comfortable reviewing additions in Ruby.
Correction; *current* regular/high-value reviewers.
Correct. The opinions of inactive community
Hi Ram,
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
While at it, why not re-evaluate the whole msysgit approach? I bet we
don't need a whole separate project just to create a Windows
installer. I've written Windows installers before, it's very easy to
do from
Hi Duy,
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:
As one of the people who helps maintain git packages in pkgsrc, my
initial reaction is negative to
David Lang wrote:
Well, Felipe is saying that Perl is dieing and we should re-write everything
that exists in Perl to Ruby.
I don't agree with that opinion. More generally, I think the entire
discussion on what _should_ or _should not_ be done is rubbish. What
_will_ and _will not_ happen
Junio C Hamano wrote:
So at least for now, the conclusion is to take approach #1, i.e.
somebody who finds related a good addition rewrites it in Perl to
promote it out of contrib/ once the design issues settle (of course
it is still a possibility that no such volunteer appears).
We'll think
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes:
* Ask the user to build external programs with
make GIT_ROOT=where/git/lives/
* or, ask users to checkout the external program as a subdirectory of
git.git to build it (for example, clang's build installation ask you
to put clang as a
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Reading Git for Windows's FAQ
( https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions ),
it seems rather clear that the TODO-list is already long to have a
correct Perl support (I'm quite admirative of the work done already).
The POSIX guys shouldn't move
Matthieu Moy wrote:
I think it should be the Git for Windows community, and my feeling is
that the community developing Git for POSIX systems is far more active
than the one making it work for Windows (although we may now have more
windows users than unix users).
If I can be excused for being
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes:
The POSIX guys shouldn't move faster than the Windows guys can follow.
That is a very good summary.
It does not mean everybody must always crawl at the same pace as the
slowest people. But it is one of the important things we should
consider,
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
I think he way forward on Windows is an implementation like libgit2 or
git# with some sort of gui/ide integration. I never understood why
users on Windows want to use something as POSIX'y as git.git.
Whether it's based on POSIX is an
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Visual Studio now has official Git support from MS (based on libgit2 if
I understood correctly). That's cool, but not a reason to kill msysgit
IMHO ;-).
Oh, I'm not interested in killing anything. If people want msysgit,
they will work on it: I'm nobody to say otherwise.
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
I think he way forward on Windows is
Why is there only one way forward? Why do you get to pick it, given
that you've said you're not interested in working on it?
[...]
I never understood why
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Whether it's based on POSIX is an implementation detail for the user.
The real question is more command-line Vs GUI than POSIX/Win32. Some
Linux users like GUI, some windows users use command-line. I tried IDE
integration with EGIT, and quite
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
I think Felipe is using the argument that perl is declining to answer
the question why didn't you write git-related in perl instead?;
that's it.
A question which nobody
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Matthieu Moy
matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Whether it's based on POSIX is an implementation detail for the user.
The real question is more command-line Vs GUI than POSIX/Win32. Some
Linux users like GUI,
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
My initial reaction, too. It was hard enough to get Perl included with Git
for Windows (because of that pesky Subversion
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM, David Lang da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
David Lang wrote:
Perl use may or may not be declining (depending on how you measure it),
but
are you really willing to take on the task of re-writing everything
that's
in Perl
Felipe Contreras wrote:
While at it, why not re-evaluate the whole msysgit approach? I bet we
don't need a whole separate project just to create a Windows
installer. I've written Windows installers before, it's very easy to
do from Linux.
Yeah, taking the pain out of msysgit packaging would
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
commit a lot of good ruby code to contrib*
Oh, by the way: I have a project idea. There's this really popular
project called hub[1] that has an implementation of the GitHub API in
ruby. Unfortunately, it's a terrible piece of software because it
creates an extra
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
I think we heard enough from packaging folks that a new dependency
is unwelcome.
What are you talking about? Which are these packaging folks we heard from?
Dscho is one of the primary people behind msysgit effort, and I
consulted with
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
I think we heard enough from packaging folks that a new dependency
is unwelcome.
What are you talking about? Which are these packaging folks we heard from?
Dscho is
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:
As one of the people who helps maintain git packages in pkgsrc, my
initial reaction is negative to adding a ruby dependency.
My initial reaction, too. It
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
The reviewer pool for code written in a new language _must_ be
seeded by some from the current set of reviewers whose judgement
I/we can trust.
By that standard nothing will ever change. Ever.
Even twenty
On 5 June 2013 16:45, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
That might make sense for the shorter term, but in longer term I see
Perl as declining in favor of other languages. It's only a matter of
time before
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:26 AM, demerphq demer...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2013 16:45, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
That might make sense for the shorter term, but in longer term I see
Perl as
On 2013-06-06 03:46:59 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:26 AM, demerphq demer...@gmail.com wrote:
Good thing you are being objective and leaving out the Python 3.0
mess, the long legacy of backwards compatibility in the Perl
community, the active community behind it, its
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
* at the source-code level, a tool in contrib can take advantage of some
of the Git build/test infrastructure, though I don't know whether they
currently do.
They do not do much AFAICT. For example, contrib/subtree/t/Makefile is
essentially
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Barry Fishman barry_fish...@acm.org wrote:
On 2013-06-06 03:46:59 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:26 AM, demerphq demer...@gmail.com wrote:
Good thing you are being objective and leaving out the Python 3.0
mess, the long legacy of
On 2013-06-06 09:01:48 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Barry Fishman barry_fish...@acm.org wrote:
On 2013-06-06 03:46:59 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:26 AM, demerphq demer...@gmail.com wrote:
Good thing you are being objective and leaving
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Barry Fishman barry_fish...@acm.org wrote:
On 2013-06-06 09:01:48 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Nobody is judging the usefulness of a language, I have plenty of
arguments for that, but this is about popularity.
I used usefulness in its general vague sense. It
On 2013-06-06 10:09:21 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I don't know what you are saying, but it clearly has nothing to do
with the point.
Perl is declining, and it would be wise to use another language
instead of it.
You want a simple statement. I don't particulary like Perl, but it has
worked
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Barry Fishman barry_fish...@acm.org wrote:
On 2013-06-06 10:09:21 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I don't know what you are saying, but it clearly has nothing to do
with the point.
Perl is declining, and it would be wise to use another language
instead of it.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Felipe Contreras wrote:
In the end my point remains unchanged; Perl is declining, so it would
be wise for the future to use another scripting language instead.
Perl use may or may not be declining (depending on how you measure it), but are
you really willing to take on
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
git is a core tool that people use on almost the smallest of boxes,
perhaps even replacing rcs for managing local config files. On such
machines, even perl may be large,
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM, David Lang da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Felipe Contreras wrote:
In the end my point remains unchanged; Perl is declining, so it would
be wise for the future to use another scripting language instead.
Perl use may or may not be declining
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
git is a core tool that people use on almost the smallest of boxes,
perhaps even replacing rcs for
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
But my main point is that I think it would be easier to phase out
contrib/ if there were a good alternate way of providing visibility to
satellite projects. The relevant Git wiki page [1] is the most likely
David Lang wrote:
Perl use may or may not be declining (depending on how you measure it), but
are you really willing to take on the task of re-writing everything that's
in Perl into another language and force all developers of scripts to learn
that other language? what's the ROI of this?
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
My initial reaction, too. It was hard enough to get Perl included with Git
for Windows (because of that pesky Subversion dependency).
Nevertheless, we had to do it, and we did it. We will do it again, if
we get enough important code written in Ruby.
As you can see
On 06/06/2013 01:46 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:26 AM, demerphq demer...@gmail.com wrote:
Good thing you are being objective and leaving out the Python 3.0
mess, the long legacy of backwards compatibility in the Perl
community, the active community behind it, its
Greg Troxel wrote:
It's not about what I want. It's about making choices that affect other
people, and trying to find a plan that will be overall reasonable;
that's the essence of stewardship in packaging. Compiling for just
myself is far easier.
Have you asked the SBCL or Google-Chrome
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
David Lang wrote:
Perl use may or may not be declining (depending on how you measure it), but
are you really willing to take on the task of re-writing everything that's
in Perl into another language and force all developers of scripts to learn
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Git is probably the _last_ thing
to be complaining about when it comes to packaging.
It would be nice if contrib/ files supported the usual make; make
install; make clean targets. That's missing functionality that does
matter to
Hi Ram,
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
My initial reaction, too. It was hard enough to get Perl included with Git
for Windows (because of that pesky Subversion dependency).
Nevertheless, we had to do it, and we did it.
That is not quite
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Lang da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
On Ruby:
Assuming related is a good idea, to make it as the proper part of
the system out of contrib/ when its design review phase is
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
I however do not know how much extra burden it would place to add
dependencies to platform folks, so obviously the safer approach is 1
at least in the immediate future. My
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
On Ruby:
Assuming related is a good idea, to make it as the proper part of
the system out of contrib/ when its design review phase is finished,
one of these things has to happen:
1. Find a volunteer to
On 06/05/2013 02:04 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
* fc/contrib-related (2013-06-03) 4 commits
- contrib: related: parse committish like format-patch
- contrib: related: add option to parse from committish
- contrib: related: add support for multiple
63 matches
Mail list logo
