Re: [PATCH v1 04/25] contrib: remove 'buildsystems'

From: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com>
Date: May 9, 2014, 09:10 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPQNSay4gDJ2Ea-w0=wnU1oqVZ_ATm1Q_M71zt+rAd1XUr0zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <536c966cf0e9c_2bf0e952f079@nysa.notmuch>

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If you want this script to remain in contrib, please:
>> >
>> >  a) Write at least a few tests
>> >  b) Write some documentation
>> >  c) Explain why it cannot live outside the git.git repository like other
>> >     tools. [1][2][3]
>>
>> (Adding Marius, the original author to the CC-list)
>>
>> Uh, why is such a burden required all of a sudden? contrib/README
>> mentions no such requirements, and the scripts have been accepted (and
>> maintained) since.
>
> contrib/README mentions clearly the expectation that these scripts
> eventually move to the core once they mature. This is never going to
> happen for these.

Yes, *expectation*. Not requirement.

> It also mentions that inactive ones would be proposed for removal, and
> this one is clearly inactive. It has 9 commits (if you count the one
> that changes the execution bit).

It mentions that Junio *might* suggest things to be removed, not that things *should* be removed if left unmaintained.

And this script is not unmaintained, it's simply just still working.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> Besides, you say "No activity since 2010" - this is not the case,
>> bc380fc is from November 2013.
>
> You think changing the execution bit of a file is considered "activity"?
>

Well, now we're getting into semantics, which I don't care so much about. It shows some sort of interest in the scripts, at least.

>> And there's already *some* documentation in the scripts themselves.
>
> That's nice. So you can just copy that into a README.

Feel free to scratch that itch yourself, you're the one inventing new requirements here.

>> Please stop your pointless crusade that'll only break other people's work-flows.
>
> If you care about these scripts, it should be trivial for you to add at
> least a few tests, souldn't it?

Again, testing this is not my itch. Feel free to scratch that one yourself, but please don't remove the script.

> Please tell me how exactly will your work-flow be broken. More
> specifically, tell me why your scripts cannot be moved outside of git,
> like git-extras[1], git-deploy[2], git-ftp[3], and countless other
> tools.

Moving the script out of the repo makes it less convenient to bisect issues with MSVC, as it depends heavily on the top-level Makefile. Moving it out would require figuring out what version of the script matches a given git revision, which is a hassle.

Again, please stop this pointless crusade.