Re: [PATCH 2/2] completion: split __git_ps1 into a separate script

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Ted Pavlic <ted@tedpavlic.com> wrote:
>> The solution, proposed by Kerrick Staley[3], is to split the git script
>> in two; the part that deals with __git_ps1() in one (i.e.
>> git-prompt.sh), and everything else in another (i.e.
>> git-completion.bash).
>
> Seems like this solution has popped up on lots of forums for about
> every Linux distribution around the time the new bash completion was
> introduced. I'm not sure Kerric Staley deserves sole attribution
> (sorry Kerrick; I mean no offense).

I didn't attribute it to him, I merely said he proposed it, which he
did, I did not make any statement about him being the sole author of
this idea.

I don't recall this solution for this problem being proposed in this
mailing list by anybody else though. And I don't think it's relevant.

> Moreover, every time the subject of splitting __gitdir out comes up, a
> side discussion about all of the complications that could cause comes
> up... and people give up and hope that the folks upstream (i.e., here)
> will come up with a better solution.

This is the reply Kerrick got to his suggestion from Jeff King:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/194230

I also agreed, and so did Jonathan Nieder:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/194950

So I don't see what you mean by those side "discussions" I recall
Junio objecting to this, but the split was meant to solve another
issue (zsh).

> If it was so simple to just split __gitdir out, I think it would have
> already been done.
>
>> The only slight issue is that __gitdir() would be duplicated, but this
>> is probably not a big deal.
>
> That seems ugly. I know that splitting __gitdir out is also ugly, but
> I know that there are going to be a lot more people who use git
> completion than git_ps1. Consequently, in a duplicated __gitdir
> scneario, I worry that __gitdir will receive more attention and may
> relatively quickly diverge in implementation if not very careful in
> approving patches. Moreover, a __gitdir of the future may not be
> atomic and will pick up side effects and become impossible to manage
> in two places.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't work worst than the current __gitdir(). And I
haven't heard any better suggestions yet.

> So maybe a split out "git-gitdir.sh" that both files include would be
> "better." Either that or the functionality of "__gitdir" gets pulled
> into git itself. (perhaps a git-gitdir added to the main git
> distribution)

I like the idea of 'git gitdir' (or 'git dir'), and I dislike the idea
of 'git-gitdir.sh'; people would need to copy one extra file, and
probably edit multiple files.

>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>
> As the patch is from you, there's no need to sign off on it too.

Yes I do, according to Linux guidelines[1], and that's what I've been
always doing in the git mailing list.

Anyway, before going straight to a negative attitude, why don't we
wait for more comments before making any conclusions?

Cheers.

[1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

-- 
Felipe Contreras