From: Christian Couder Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:20:01 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] bisect: remove Perl use by implementing "git bisect--helper --sq-quote" Message-ID: <200904232120.01300.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> In-Reply-To: <7veivl444b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Le mercredi 22 avril 2009, Junio C Hamano a écrit : > Christian Couder writes: > > The sq() function in "git-bisect.sh" was the only place where Perl > > was needed. This patch remove this use of Perl by implementing > > a new "--sq-quote" option in "builtin-bisect--helper.c". > > Isn't it because only git-bisect.sh for whatever reason reimplements sq > using Perl while original implementation in am used sed for more > portability? Well I saw that there was some work going to remove perl dependencies, so I thought that I might help by removing the Perl dependency from git-bisect.sh. I didn't look at other places where sq is implemented otherwise. I just checked other shell scripts where there is @@PERL@@. > I would suspect, if it were 3 years ago, that any serious porcelain > writers would have very much appreciated such a feature that gives shell > programmers an easy access to a quoting function that allows a safe eval, > and I would have strongly suggested that the feature to be implemented in > a more permanent place rather than in bisect--helper; perhaps a better > place would be the kitchen-sink "rev-parse". I did it in bisect--helper because I was working on it, and I wanted to do it in C because I am porting bisect stuff to C. But now that you pointed that sq is also implemented in git-am.sh, I agree that it would be perhaps better if it was implemented in something like "rev-parse". And then it could be used both in "git-bisect.sh" and in "git-am.sh". > But given that nobody seems competent enough to do serious programming in > shell these days, I am not sure if the choice between bisect--helper and > rev-parse makes much of a difference ;-). We never know, it might become trendy again ;-) Best regards, Christian.