[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in bui
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts) |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:22:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> skribis:
> My opinion is that the preferred API for Git is still the UNIX one via
> plumbing commands. Anything else is trying to catch up to it, and then
> we get into this conundrum that we want to do everything in Scheme, but
> we're unable to do it as well as Git itself. If I had to choose, a
> Guile library wrapping the Git commands would be the best, especially
> since we're managing long-living checkouts, something libgit2 doen't
> seem too interested in.
I have mixed feelings here. Clearly, I don’t think a Unix command can
ever be as rich and efficient as a “proper library”.
Are alternative Git implementations doomed to always try to catch up?
My intuition would be “no”, because not so much changes in Git as an
on-disk format and protocol.
There is one big change coming up though: SHA256 support (now officially
supported in Git). Is it being discussed in libgit2?
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
> Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> writes:
[...]
>> There's still the `git gc` problem though.
>
> It's klunky, but a workaround is to locally clone the checkout anew
> using libgit2, as suggested here [0].
>
> [0] https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/issues/3247#issuecomment-486585944
That doesn’t work, at least with libgit2 1.3.2:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65720#7
> We could also try to contribute to libgit2 toward adding proper
> support for a 'gc' action.
I share this sentiment: if we’re gonna depend on it, we’ve gotta invest
in it. We’re benefiting from it so we shouldn’t be mere consumers.
I have to admit I don’t see myself doing it right now, but I would
definitely encourage others to do so.
Now, as a corollary to what I wrote above: if we don’t invest in it, we
should be prepared to drop it.
Ludo’.
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), (continued)
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Simon Tournier, 2023/09/11
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/09/11
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Ludovic Courtès, 2023/09/14
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Simon Tournier, 2023/09/14
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/09/16
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Ludovic Courtès, 2023/09/18
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Simon Tournier, 2023/09/18
- Re: bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts, Ludovic Courtès, 2023/09/19
- Re: bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/19
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Vagrant Cascadian, 2023/09/11