Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change?

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Nov 26, 2007, 21:28 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.99999.0711261620220.9605@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <85prxwzqvn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 20:34:25 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> >> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> >> Get rid of plumbing at the command line level.
> >> >
> >> > We can't get rid of plumbing.
> >> 
> >> What about "at the command line level" did you not understand?
> >
> > Which part of we neither can nor want did you not understant?
> >
> > The availability of plumbing is really big part of a reason why git is
> > so good and has so many scripts and tool built on top of it.
> 
> Which is the reason I proposed making the plumbing available at a
> scripting level, not at the command line level.

You're mixing two orthogonal issues, namely: 1) the scripting language, and 2) the too large number of Git command accessible through your default path.

#1 is a non issue really. We don't want to lock plumbing to any particular scripting language, and the current interface is the most universal one in that regard.

#2 can be solved through a single multiplexer such as 'git low-level'.

That 'git low-level foo' may just look up git-foo in some libexec directory, and only 'git-low-level' need to be in the path instead of all those plumbing commands.

Need only to have both forms ('git foo' and 'git low-level foo') to work for a transition period.

Nicolas