Re: RFC: a plugin architecture for git extensions?
- From
- Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgquiles@elpauer.org>
- Date
- Apr 27, 2011, 22:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <BANLkTimsWmtXzogjN4bPkhmV8K=y1c4AmA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <BANLkTinRUaGmF5xqmVGWFurGMtO8Cgb9Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
Can we please split this debate into the two threads that have arisen?
a) git extensions (the original point)
b) git package manager
Let me give my unrequested opinion:
a) I like it. Mercurial has it. It requires more or less what Jon says below: let's define a hierarchy of where to place the executables, documentation, the extenions' porcelain (which IMHO would require one directory per extension), etc
b) Please no. As a Debian developer, I'd rather see extensions distributed as source, then I would package them. It's what Debian (and other distributions) are doing now with Ruby gems, Python eggs, etc: we provide packages for them so that you do not use gem, etc
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 47 quoted lines
> Hide quoted text - > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> So if you have /home/js/bin on your $PATH, you can install your "git-work" >>>> script as /home/js/bin/git-work, and that should be sufficient. >>> >>> Yep, that's a start, but does not a a complete plugin architecture make :-) >> >> Please explain yourself. >> > > So, I think at a very minimum, a plugin architecture should specify > the file system layout of packages to be managed by a plugin/package > manager. > > So, where to find scripts, where to find man pages, bash completions, > configuration help etc. > > A slightly more functional architecture would provide support for > unpacking package archives into a "standard" repository location and > for removing unwanted plugins. > > A plugin architecture might specify a standard way to access > extensions. (git blah is easy for local use, but what if a plugin > grabs a "noun" that the core wants to use that "noun" itself in > future. Perhaps gitx blah would be a better standard way to access > extensions. But that is an aside, I am sure this question has been > considered previously). > > An even more functional architecture would provide support for a > global registry of plugins. I understand that git may not want to > write its own package manager (how many times has that been done), > but it'd be nice if competing "git package managers" had a standard > target to deploy to. > > My thoughts about this are inspired by how the node project manages > packages with its npm package manager and also the fact that I have > several ideas on the boil at the moment that would definitely benefit > from a standard way to manage these concerns. > > jon. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
-- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)