From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:47:48 GMT
Subject: Re: RFC: a plugin architecture for git extensions?
Message-ID: <BANLkTinxFNSXEnRR0ZACO0W-+kDL0CD-qg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimsWmtXzogjN4bPkhmV8K=y1c4AmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles
<pgquiles@elpauer.org> wrote:
> 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
>

I absolutely agree that is the right approach. To the extent that my
proposal supports:

    git pm install foobar

it would do so by delegation to package-manager adapters (in effect
acting as a meta package manager).

However, I don't want to further distract discussion by having a
debate about whether a meta package
manager is a good idea or not.  So let's concentrate on what:

   git pm activate

would look like and do.

jon.