Re: Core and Not-So Core

From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: May 11, 2005, 03:02 UTC
Message-ID: <2cfc403205051020023e84ec7b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505102226020.5426@localhost.localdomain>

On 5/11/05, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Wed, 11 May 2005, Jon Seymour wrote:
> > I agree in principle, though I'd like users to be able to easily
> > switch between the Eclipse and git tools view of the workspace if they
> > want to - who am I to say how a user should work? Eclipse does this
> > kind of thing quite well with CVS precisely because it shares the
> > workspace structures with the CVS command line tools rather than
> > "re-inventing" the wheel.
> 
> In this case you just need to manage to use the current index format
> somehow.
> 
> Honestly I don't think Linus might be interested into changing the index
> format just to make a Java implementation happier.  So your best bet is
> probably to use it as is or ignore it entirely.
>

Agreed - I am not proposing a change to the index format, merely highlighting that the index format is closely bound to the workspace-oriented toolset and that the workspace-oriented toolset is distinct from the repository-oriented toolset; different workspace-oriented toolsets will have different requirements for their index files and so their index files might quite rightly differ in both form and substance.

That said, their is no harm making my set of tools interoperable with the git tools, where that is possible so that the user can decide to use which ever toolset fits the job immediately at hand. With this in mind, a published specification of the index format would help, but I am not going insist on that. I am certainly not going to ask for changes to it! Life is too short :-)

jon.