From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: GSOC idea: build in scripts and cleanups Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:39:39 -0400 Message-ID: <20110326133939.GB2859@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <201103260141.20798.robert.david.public@gmail.com> <20110326021435.GA2352@elie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Robert David , Git Mailing List , Thomas Rast , Matthieu Moy To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 26 14:39:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3Tia-0003tw-E3 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:39:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751965Ab1CZNjq (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:39:46 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:53307 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751963Ab1CZNjq (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:39:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 24002 invoked by uid 107); 26 Mar 2011 13:40:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:40:21 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:39:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110326021435.GA2352@elie> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:14:35PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I was also thinking if there isn't PERL a better choice in rewriting shell > > scripts, due to planed porting (android, etc). Better than C. But I don't know > > android and other platform so much, so thats why I'm asking. > > So far (on Windows and various Unixen) it seems that C is much easier > to work with as far as porting goes.[2] If I were considering cleaning up and porting add--interactive to C, I think I would probably start with just porting the "-p" patch loop first. I think it's the part that most people use, and most callers don't support a generic "-i" but just the "-p" interface (e.g., you can do "git add -i" or "git add -p", but only "git checkout -p"). And that cuts down the size of the task somewhat. As far as cleanup versus features, I think Thomas would have to comment on that. He is the one who did the most work on patch-mode, and therefore the one who most thinks it needs cleaned up. :) > [1] Android is an odd example because the platform uses Java heavily > (so JGit might be a better fit for it). Perhaps the wish for android > support should have been put on the Eclipse ideas page[2] and a link > added to git's; I dunno. Yeah, I'm not sure what an Android port would quite look like. In theory I could probably build stock git for my rooted N1 using a cross-compiler. But I can't imagine what I would use it for. A native app seems like it would be more useful, and that pretty much requires Java. -Peff