Re: RFC: a plugin architecture for git extensions?
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Apr 28, 2011, 09:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4DB92F55.5090409@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <BANLkTikbcpzF203rUVB05OYyYhLmu3+n6w@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/28/2011 04:15 AM, Jon Seymour wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Assuming for the moment that the concept of a managed plugin is accepted, then. > > The relationship between distribution managers and the git-plugin > architecture would be as follows: > > - distributions would know how to locate the git instance it manages > - distributions would know how to install their own packages that > contain plugins into plugins/ subdirectory of this git instance > - distributions would know how to run git plugin activate and properly > handle non-zero return codes from same > > make install scripts would act like a kind of distribution in this regard. > > Now consider this: > > * suppose that git-core defined a git install _interface contract_ but > did not define an implementation. >
Please. I'm already on my way to a seriously boring sales meeting without having developers throw garbage terms on me. You've done a lot of that in this thread and I for one am confused by them as to what you want to achieve and how you want to achieve it.
Show 11 quoted lines
> Then, a distribution could install its own implementation of the > git-install plugin into git installations it manages. > > Then a command like: > > git install gitwork > > would trivially work across all distributions precisely because the > distribution has provided the implementation of the git install > interface contract that git-core has helpfully mandated. >
And so we force package maintainers to become git extension developers. Brilliant. They'll love you for it.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace.