Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] bdl-lib.sh: add bash debug logger

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Apr 5, 2018, 13:37 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1804051536080.55@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>
In-Reply-To: <CAKk8isqA6Ru05kRJ+xiVHEkzPgH24cKUZbbgw2tEnw4rhafDQw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wink,

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote:
> >
> >> Add bdl-lib.sh which provides functions to assit in debugging git
> >> shell scripts and tests.
> >
> > Interesting idea. It is Bash-only, though... (and it is not a secret
> > that I want to discourage using Unix shell scripts in Git's production
> > code, they are a decent way to prototype things, but they fall short
> > of being robust and portable in practice, and don't get me started on
> > speed issues).
> >
> > So rather than spending time on making it easier to debug shell
> > scripts, I would love to see us going into the direction of a
> > consistent C source code. I still believe that we can get there, and
> > that the benefits are worth the (huge) effort.
> 
> I totally agree the code base should use primarily one language!

Great!

> But that's not the case now and "bdl" gave me insight into the workings
> of rebase--interactive and I found little guidance on how to debug
> or learn the code base. So I thought I'd see if there was interest
> in what I'd done.

And realistically, requiring Bash is not all that much of a problem when targeting developers.

> If I were to make it non-bash specific would there be any interest?

After thinking about this more, I am a lot less opposed to including this in Git's source code. However, as it is not necessary for Git's functionality, it should probably go into contrib/, and I would much rather have a more descriptive name such as contrib/bash-debugging-library/...

Ciao, Johannes