Re: New command/tool: git filter-repo

>
> On Thu, Jan 31 2019, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> > What's the future?  (Core command of git.git?  place it in contrib?  keep it
> > in a separate repo?)  I'm hoping to discuss that at the contributor summit
> > today, but feedback on the list is also welcome.
>
> Some of this I may have mentioned at the summit, but here for the list:
>
> * I think it should be a candidate for a core (not "just contrib")
>   git.git command, given that we have someone willing to maintain it &
>   deal with bugs etc. I'm not worried about that given the author.
>
> * It's unfortunate in terms of API we need to support going forward that
>   this obligates us to support a fairly intricate python API going
>   forward, so it's similar (but more detailed) to Git.pm (which I also
>   tried to get rid of as an external API a while ago).
>
>   However, as you correctly note that's the only way a command like this
>   can be really fast, we already have the "no special API" command with
>   git-filter-branch, and that's horribly slow.
>
>   But perhaps there's ways we can in advance deal with a potential
>   future breaking API change. E.g. some Pythonic way of versioning the
>   API, or just prominently documenting whatever (low?) stability
>   guarantees we're making.
>
>   I imagine if we need to make breaking changes in the future that'll
>   less big of a deal than in other cases, since we'd expect the API use
>   to be one-off migration scripts, although maybe it'll get used for
>   all-the-time exports (e.g. mirroring internal->external repos with
>   filtering).
>
> * The rest of our commands are hooked up to the i18n framework. I don't
>   think this should be a blocker, but it's worth thinking about what the
>   plan for this is.
>
>   Are we going to need the equivalent of Git::I18N for Python (which
>   presumably will be a run-time dependency on something needing the
>   Python API that links to gettext).
>
>   Or perhaps we could do the translated strings in C, by making the
>   program you're invoking be a C command, invoking the Python part as a
>   helper (which would need to re-invoke a helper if it prints its own
>   messages).
>
> Thanks for working on this!