Re: git log filtering

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 9, 2007, 13:13 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0702091410230.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070209015925.GD10574@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Jeff King wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:18:01AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I do. Not because of the extra lines, but because of the inconsistent 
> > interface.
> 
> OK, so we may either:
>   1. always use the lowest common denominator (i.e., no pcre support)
>   2. force a dependency for new features (i.e., require pcre)
>   3. have inconsistency between builds (i.e., conditional dependency)
>   4. include all dependencies, or re-write them natively
> 
> I agree that 4 can make some sense in limited situations, but I worry
> that it will eventually cease to be scalable (we don't get improvements
> or bugfixes automatically from other packages, we potentially re-invent
> the wheel). We already have '3' for other things: openssl, curl, expat,
> even perl.

The difference, of course, is that with the "other things", we either have no alternative (if you do not have curl, you cannot use HTTP transport), or we have workalikes (if you don't use openssl, the (possibly slower) SHA1 replacements take effect).

We _used_ to rely on external "diff" and "merge", but have them as inbuilt components, exactly to avoid "if you have a slightly differing setup, git behaves differently".

Ciao, Dscho