Re: VCS comparison table
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Oct 25, 2006, 21:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20061025211618.GA30121@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v3b9cnlx7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:08:20PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> the older shell implementation around as reference. People > coming to git after 1.3 series certainly do have harder time to > learn how plumbing would fit together than when git old-timers > learned it, if that is the area they are interested in, as > opposed to just using git as a revision tracking system.
I think this is part of the complication of discussion I'm having with David. There are really two sets of users for git: people who want to hack scripts based on plumbing, and people who want everything to "just work." I think it's a good point that as the system matures (movement to C and growth of complexity), it might become less easy to hack.
> - Create examples/ hierarchy in the source tree to house these > historical implementations as a reference material, or an > entirely different branch or repository to house them.
Housing historical implementations seems like it would just lead to out-of-date and non-functional examples.
> - Learn the itches David and other people have, that the > current git Porcelain-ish does not scratch well, and enrich > Documentation/technical with real-world working scripts built > around plumbing.
I think this is a better approach. I think it also makes sense to let people know that it's an acceptable approach to start new features as shell and then have them mature to C (looking at the current codebase, and some of Dscho's rantings, one might get the impression that git isn't accepting new shell scripts).