Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2012, #01; Sun, 3)
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 6, 2012, 18:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMP44s2VGLj8kRih-95A0VDq86WKWHF3EhLvz0etyHHtP27qLA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vbokwmifp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: > >>> The last remaining sticking point is what to do with the duplicated shell >>> function. >> >> What is the problem with leaving it as it is; having it as a duplicate >> function. It's not a *huge* maintenance burden, and it's a big problem >> if the functions diverge. > > It is not even funny to see these two conflicting claims made in a > single sentence. Given that you are aware that it will cause a huge > problem to the end users if they diverge,
What would be that *huge* problem?
Suppose __gitdir() in git-prompt.sh is never updated again; it won't be any worst than it is currently, would it?
Sow what would be this _theoretical_ problem?
> I did not see anything like these.
Nor is it needed *right now*. You could release v1.7.11 without any of these, and then v1.7.11.1 or even v1.7.12 with a solution; I bet __gitdir() would not have changed by that point.
But more importantly; the world would not end.
> I think I've sent out a patch along the line of (1) in an attempt to > help, but I do not recall you responded to it in any way.
I just saw it now, and I think it's unnecessary extra complexity.
> And the > first thing you do is to complain. The maintenance burden could be > made into "not huge", but what you are doing is to actively make it > more burdensome than necessary.
I don't think it's needed *right now*. It's more important to fix the dynamic loading, which is a *real problem* users are experiencing *right now*.
Show 6 quoted lines
>> I still plan to add a native helper for this, but I don't see what >> that would block these patches. > > I do not want to see a native helper, if other approaches would > equally work to prevent divergence from happening, in which case > such a change to the core would be a useless code churn.
Feel free to reject my patches and implement whatever you want, but I think this is the cleanest and simplest solution, and I will give it a try. But not right now.
Cheers.
-- Felipe Contreras