Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] contrib: remove outdated README

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2014, 12:20 UTC
Message-ID: <5376029cc3c92_65ebfe530844@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20140516112517.GB546@wst420>

William Giokas wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:21:36AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > How exactly would it be better?
> > 
> > If you concede that the Git release wouldn't be affected, then assuming
> > a hypothetical future where git-remote-hg is bundled, and we have a
> > Mercurial API breakage, we would have:
> > 
> >  Git < v2.5 fail, Git >= 2.5 get the fix
> > 
> > If we unbundle, we have:
> > 
> >  git-remote-hg < v0.5 fail, git-remote-hg >= v0.5 get the fix
> > 
> > What is the big difference?
> 
> It's a matter of scope and where the releases happen, that is all.

Of course the core vs. out-of-tree question is a matter of where the releases happen. The question here was: in which way is out-of-tree a better place?

If it's a matter of scope, that is; should a foreign vcs interface tool be bundled in the Git core? Then that question applies not only to git-remote-hg/bzr, but also git-p4, git-cvs, git-svn, and others.

The answer to the first question seems to be; it's not at all clear (in fact there doesn't seem to be any valid argument in favour of out-of-tree). The answer to the second question is; we are not asking that question right now (for the moment foreign vcs tools should remain part of the Git core).

I started the graduation series by saying "there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to", and Junio agreed. Now Junio doesn't agree, but it's till the case there's no good reason not to.

-- 
Felipe Contreras