Re: RFC: a plugin architecture for git extensions?

From: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
Date: May 5, 2011, 21:41 UTC
Message-ID: <88795B20-6994-46A5-9710-2ADC84E04695@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikKp9-uFGLavBT0UA5+maV5xiEJZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:56 AM, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> What is so  hard about:
> 
>  app install plugin.
> 
> Forget git. Forget git work.
> 
> What is so hard about the concept of an application providing a
> facility that allows it to request, merely request, the installation
> of a plugin for itself by what ever happens to be the users choice of
> package manager or distribution.

It's not hard.  We simply don't need it.

Why do I need to activate my "plugin"?  That seems like a needless feature. If I don't want "git gui" I apt-get uninstall git-gui.

I've read this thread and do not understand what problem this is trying to solve. I have personally gotten along just fine writing git applications and deploying them with existing package managers.  I've not once ran into any situation where I felt I needed more support from git in order to deploy git commands.

Users already know about their package manager. Why do we need them to learn about Yet Another system?

> Is such a concept really, fundamentally flawed?

Yes

Show 12 quoted lines

> if so, replace "git" with "linux", "app" with "apt-get", "plugin" with
> "git-core" and explain to me why
> 
> apt-get install git-core
> 
> is such a bad idea.
> 
> Yes, different levels of abstraction, but the principles are the same.
> 
> Like it or not, git is a platform, there is absolutely no reason why
> it can't have sane plugin manager, other than complete lack of
> imagination.

It doesn't need one. I'm happy with apt, yum, etc.  I probably don't understand why I need to learn more, but ignorance is bliss and users like to be blissful.

Let's assume we did have this system for a minute. Now we are worse off because many git apps do not and will never use the new plugin system.

Are we going to one day remove the awesome "search for git-foo in path" behavior and break everyone?  I think not.  In other words, I see little incentive for existing, established git apps to use such a system.

Sorry if I seem like a hard-liner, but we should always strive to keep things as simple as possible. I don't see any downsides to the current situation which is why I would resist such a proposal.  The upside would have to be pretty significant to convince established git apps to switch.

-- 
                                        David