Re: I want to release a "git-1.0"
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Date
- May 31, 2005, 00:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505301752320.1876@ppc970.osdl.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050530221922.GC21076@mythryan2.michonline.com>
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> > Umm, why do you maintain two seperate "git" related trees?
Well, my "tools" thing really isn't git proper, and may not make much sense in the git distribution.
That said, I'm actually moving things into git as they turn useful. For example, I move the "stripspace" program into git (which means it got renamed into "git-stripspace", since it ended up being useful for the stand-alone git-commit-scripts too.
But how many non-Linux projects really apply mailboxes of patches? It doesn't seem to be very "core".
> Why not merge all of git-tools in, in a tools/ subdirectory?
I'll think about it. It does look like at least about half of the git tools end up being pretty core.
> I've been meaning to ask the same question about "gitweb" for that > matter.
Well, there the issue definitely boils down to "different maintainers". I don't want to connect things that don't need to be connected.
> I'd guess part of this is a holdover from the fact that you needed an > independent tree for BitKeeper, but does it still make sense?
Well, I see the "tools" thing really as my private tools that may or may not make sense for anybody else. Even the cvs2git thing is just so _stupid_, since I bet you can do it quite cleanly in perl without having that strange "convert cvsps output into a shellscript" stage (admittedly, it was _really_ convenient for debugging to have that separate stage, so while it looks a bit hacky, it ended up being very powerful).
Linus