Re: rfc - Changing the way gitk and git-gui are managed
- From
- Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr>
- Date
- Jul 24, 2010, 14:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100724140054.GB13067@vidovic>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100724125408.GA17481@burratino>
The 24/07/10, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > > What is the issue with the current status? > > Here is one: > > $ git log --oneline -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk > $ git log --oneline --follow -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk > 62ba514 Move gitk to its own subdirectory > $ git log --oneline -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk gitk > 207ad7b gitk: Set the font for all listbox widgets > $
I'm sorry, I don't get your point here.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > Going this way, why would we want gitk and git-gui as submodules at all? > > If we want to stop distributing them completely (though I am not > convinced that would be a good idea), then submodules would be a > good stopping point along the way to avoid changing the world too > much at a time.
It depends on why we would want to split gitk and git-gui from git. If it's a packaging issue only (especially for distribution maintainers), going by the "submodule" step looks more like adding a non-valuable extra step in the "splitting packages" mainstream.
Changing the world once seems better than twice.
> git archive hasn’t learned to do recursive archive yet; I think > the last murmurs of that topic were [1] and [2],
I understand gitk and git-gui are in the Git repository mostly for historical reason. I don't want to hurt someone here but I still don't see what both have so special against other porcelain tools not in git.git.
> though it would > be simple enough to use "git archive" more than once together > with "tar rf" to take care of it by hand in this case.
So, doing a tar archive of them all (with or whitout submodules) is not such an issue.
-- Nicolas Sebrecht