Re: linking libgit.a in C++ projects

[cte <cestreich@gmail.com>]

> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 23:44, cte <cestreich@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Using output from the command line utilities as an API has its own set
>> of problems. For instance, check out some of the difficulties that
>> gitk and qgit have had to deal with:
>> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2007/11/2/379067.
>
> I beg to differ. If I skimmed the topic correctly, the problems there
> were not related to having to parse git's output, but due to the fact
> that '--topo-order' is a post-processing operation, which takes long.
> Do read the recent discussion between Linus and Roman about that.

Didn't mean to imply that somehow it is no longer a post-processing op if you
aren't using git plumbing. The discussion shows, however, that if gitk
was actually
doing the revision traversals, then it would be able to trigger events
that update the
gui whenever it wanted, which would have allowed it to implement the
early output
feature without changing any of the git source. Instead, git-log had
to be altered to
address gitk's needs, and an option was added that users don't
typically use. This is
not exactly what I would consider spartan programming
(http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001148.html),
plus there are already too many options to remember! Anyways, I
suppose it is pointless
to argue about which approach is better, because both have trade-offs,
and the correct
path depends on your use case.

>>> There is, use the plumbing, forward compatibility is 95% assured. With
>>> the exception of major releases, for which any plumbing
>>> output/behavior changes will be announced in the changelog, usually
>>> including an explanation on how to change your code to match.
>>
>> 95% assured != correct, IMO :)
>
> Why not? Junio has a very good reputation of keeping git backwards
> compatible. The 95% is of course not an actual figure but an
> expression meant to indicate "statement is true, minus a few rare case
> exceptions".

Definitely not questioning his ability to maintain backwards
compatibility; it was
merely an observation about your strange definition of correct. In school, when
I completed 95% of a proof, it was never marked as "correct", and I
was told that I hadn't actually proven anything. Those damn teachers :)