git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
@ 2018-03-18 22:15 Paul Sebastian Ungureanu
  2018-03-19 23:11 ` Christian Couder
  2018-03-21 12:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Paul Sebastian Ungureanu @ 2018-03-18 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git

Hello,

I am interested in the "Convert scripts to builtins" project. I have
recently started to analyze it better and see exactly what it entails
and a few questions came to my mind.

First of all, I find it difficult to pick which scripts would benefit
the most by being rewritten. I am thinking of git bisect, git stash
and git rebase since these are maybe some of the most popular commands
of Git. However, on the other side, scripts like
git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-bisect.sh are also subject of other
GSoC projects. Should I steer away from these projects or can I
consider them?

Secondly, what is too little or too much? On one hand, I do want to do
my best and help the Git community as much as I can. On the other
hand, I do not want to have too much on my plate and not be able to
finish my project. Considering that mentors have already decided that
git rebase --interactive and git bisect are enough for two projects,
how could I quantify the time required for each command? Looking back
at the previous editions of GSoC I noticed that most projects were
focused on only one command.

From my research, these are the scripts that could be subject of this
project. Which ones do you think could be the best choice for a
project of this kind?

 * git/git-add--interactive.perl
 * git/git-archimport.perl
 * git/git-bisect.sh -- there is a project about this
 * git/git-cvsexportcommit.perl
 * git/git-cvsimport.perl
 * git/git-cvsserver.perl
 * git/git-difftool--helper.sh
 * git/git-filter-branch.sh
 * git/git-instaweb.sh
 * git/git-merge-octopus.sh
 * git/git-merge-one-file.sh
 * git/git-merge-resolve.sh
 * git/git-mergetool--lib.sh
 * git/git-mergetool.sh
 * git/git-quiltimport.sh
 * git/git-rebase--am.sh
 * git/git-rebase--interactive.sh -- there is a project about this
 * git/git-rebase--merge.sh
 * git/git-rebase.sh
 * git/git-remote-testgit.sh
 * git/git-request-pull.sh
 * git/git-send-email.perl
 * git/git-stash.sh
 * git/git-submodule.sh -- there was a project about this
 * git/git-svn.perl
 * git/git-web--browse.sh

I look forward to hearing from you. I will also submit a draft of my
proposal soon enough.

Best regards,
Paul Ungureanu

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-18 22:15 [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins" Paul Sebastian Ungureanu
@ 2018-03-19 23:11 ` Christian Couder
  2018-03-19 23:41   ` Christian Couder
  2018-03-21 12:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Couder @ 2018-03-19 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sebastian Ungureanu; +Cc: git, Yash Yadav, Alban Gruin

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Paul Sebastian Ungureanu
<ungureanupaulsebastian@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am interested in the "Convert scripts to builtins" project. I have
> recently started to analyze it better and see exactly what it entails
> and a few questions came to my mind.

Great! As other potential GSoC students are also interested I'm adding
them into Cc.

> First of all, I find it difficult to pick which scripts would benefit
> the most by being rewritten. I am thinking of git bisect, git stash
> and git rebase since these are maybe some of the most popular commands
> of Git. However, on the other side, scripts like
> git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-bisect.sh are also subject of other
> GSoC projects. Should I steer away from these projects or can I
> consider them?

If you are interested in converting these scripts, you should probably
ask publicly to the former GSoC students who have been working on
these projects if they still plan to continue working on them of if
they are ok to let you finish/continue their work. You will get extra
bonus points if they agree to help you or maybe co-mentor you.

> Secondly, what is too little or too much? On one hand, I do want to do
> my best and help the Git community as much as I can. On the other
> hand, I do not want to have too much on my plate and not be able to
> finish my project. Considering that mentors have already decided that
> git rebase --interactive and git bisect are enough for two projects,
> how could I quantify the time required for each command? Looking back
> at the previous editions of GSoC I noticed that most projects were
> focused on only one command.

Yeah, I don't think it is a good idea to focus on more than one
command per project. It could be possible if there were really small
scripts to convert, but I think those have been already converted. It
could perhaps be possible if 2 scripts were very similar, but I don't
think there are similar enough scripts to convert.

You can however submit more than one proposal, so you could for
example submit one proposal to convert one script and another one to
convert another script.

> From my research, these are the scripts that could be subject of this
> project. Which ones do you think could be the best choice for a
> project of this kind?

I think it is definitely a good idea to work on a script that has
started to be converted. Make sure that no one is still actively
working on converting it though.

I think the scripts related to other versions control systems are not
a good choice as they are not really part of the core of Git.

It is also a good idea to choose scripts that potential mentors are
familiar with.

>  * git/git-add--interactive.perl
>  * git/git-archimport.perl
>  * git/git-bisect.sh -- there is a project about this
>  * git/git-cvsexportcommit.perl
>  * git/git-cvsimport.perl
>  * git/git-cvsserver.perl
>  * git/git-difftool--helper.sh
>  * git/git-filter-branch.sh
>  * git/git-instaweb.sh
>  * git/git-merge-octopus.sh
>  * git/git-merge-one-file.sh
>  * git/git-merge-resolve.sh
>  * git/git-mergetool--lib.sh
>  * git/git-mergetool.sh
>  * git/git-quiltimport.sh
>  * git/git-rebase--am.sh
>  * git/git-rebase--interactive.sh -- there is a project about this
>  * git/git-rebase--merge.sh
>  * git/git-rebase.sh
>  * git/git-remote-testgit.sh
>  * git/git-request-pull.sh
>  * git/git-send-email.perl
>  * git/git-stash.sh
>  * git/git-submodule.sh -- there was a project about this
>  * git/git-svn.perl
>  * git/git-web--browse.sh

It would be interesting to know the number of lines of code for each
of these script, as it could give an idea about how big the task of
fully converting the script could be.

> I look forward to hearing from you. I will also submit a draft of my
> proposal soon enough.

Great!

Christian.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-19 23:11 ` Christian Couder
@ 2018-03-19 23:41   ` Christian Couder
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Couder @ 2018-03-19 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sebastian Ungureanu; +Cc: git, Yash Yadav, Alban Gruin

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder
<christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Paul Sebastian Ungureanu
>> First of all, I find it difficult to pick which scripts would benefit
>> the most by being rewritten. I am thinking of git bisect, git stash
>> and git rebase since these are maybe some of the most popular commands
>> of Git. However, on the other side, scripts like
>> git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-bisect.sh are also subject of other
>> GSoC projects. Should I steer away from these projects or can I
>> consider them?
>
> If you are interested in converting these scripts, you should probably
> ask publicly to the former GSoC students who have been working on
> these projects if they still plan to continue working on them of if
> they are ok to let you finish/continue their work. You will get extra
> bonus points if they agree to help you or maybe co-mentor you.

I realize that you were perhaps talking about other potential GSoC
students who are also writing proposals about converting one of these
scripts. If you care about the other proposals though, you should
probably just write two proposals as we will have at most 2 GSoC
students this year. Just try to have different possible mentors
interested in your 2 proposals.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-18 22:15 [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins" Paul Sebastian Ungureanu
  2018-03-19 23:11 ` Christian Couder
@ 2018-03-21 12:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
  2018-03-21 19:17   ` Wink Saville
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2018-03-21 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sebastian Ungureanu; +Cc: git

Hi Paul,

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Paul Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:

> I am interested in the "Convert scripts to builtins" project. I have
> recently started to analyze it better and see exactly what it entails
> and a few questions came to my mind.

Great!

> First of all, I find it difficult to pick which scripts would benefit
> the most by being rewritten.

Which ones do you use, personally? I'd go by that measure if I were you.

Oh, and if you are not really familiar with Perl, you may want to stay
away from those scripts. Perl was jokingly labeled a "write-only"
programming language in my presence, and when I see some of my own Perl
code, I would agree at least partially.

> I am thinking of git bisect, git stash and git rebase since these are
> maybe some of the most popular commands of Git. However, on the other
> side, scripts like git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-bisect.sh are also
> subject of other GSoC projects. Should I steer away from these projects
> or can I consider them?

I second Christian's suggestion: just apply for a couple projects you
would like to work on. If there really should be a conflict with another
strong proposal, we can always work something out.

> Secondly, what is too little or too much?

Judging by past GSoC's, even a moderately-sized script like git-bisect.sh
is too much in one go. Break it down into smaller pieces, start by adding
a --helper builtin (or continue by using one like git-bisect--helper), add
things incrementally.

If you get the proposed part done faster, I am sure you'll find tons of
other things to do ;-)

Now to your list of scripts. I reordered them so that I could group the
list into logical chunks, and then ordered them by what would be my
personal priority (most important scripts first).

>  * git/git-rebase--am.sh
>  * git/git-rebase--merge.sh

These are pretty interesting, and also pretty small. They would be *prime*
candidates for turning into builtins, methinks.

As we already have a builtin rebase--helper, that would be a natural way
to go: if you can analyze those scripts and figure out a natural
progression of incremental steps to convert them (see e.g.
https://github.com/git/git/compare/4e7524e012f...c44a4c650c which is how I
moved some parts of git-rebase--interactive.sh into the rebase--helper:
starting with the code generating the todo list, continuing with
transform_todo_ids, then check_commit_sha, skip_unnecessary_picks and
finally rearrange_squash), a very smooth timeline should fall right out of
that analysis.

One slight complication might be the fact that rebase--helper is really
only catering to rebase -i so far. So `rebase--helper --continue` assumes
that it should continue an interactive rebase. This assumption would
have to be shunned, by adding a function that determines which type of
rebase (if any) is currently in progress, and using that to figure out
what function to call to handle the --continue.

>  * git/git-rebase.sh

This script is a bit larger than rebase--am and rebase--merge combined,
but the biggest reason *not* to start with it is: git-rebase.sh is just an
orchestrator of the git-rebase--* scripts, doing little more than
command-line parsing and then handing off to the respective "backends".

Consequently, I would consider it to make most sense to convert the
rebase--* scripts *first*, and only when that is done, convert git-rebase
(renaming rebase--helper to rebase).

Note! There is one exception, and it is not even a full script. As
everybody knows who follows my patch series on this here mailing list, I
consider --preserve-merges one of my stupidest design mistakes ever. To
undo this (or at least to alleviate the damage I caused), I already
submitted a patch series to introduce a superseding option:
--recreate-merges. This patch series is on hold due to the -rc phase of
v2.17 and will be kicked back into action after v2.17.0 final is out. As
it is my hope that --preserve-merges can be deprecated in favor of
--recreate-merges (and eventually even phased out of Git), I would be
totally cool with git-rebase--preserve-merges.sh being factored out of
git-rebase--interactive.sh before converting the latter to pure C, and
leaving the --preserve-merges script alone until the time when it is put
to rest.

(While I was sleeping, leaving this mail unfinished, to be completed and
sent today, a patch series was sent to the mailing list that seems to
perform this refactoring of --preserve-merges into its own script.)

>  * git/git-add--interactive.perl

I personally would *love* to see this converted. But it is a huge task,
likely too big for a single GSoC project. But if you look at the code and
figure out a natural way to break this project down into smaller,
incremental conversions, that would be a way to go.

>  * git/git-bisect.sh -- there is a project about this
>  * git/git-rebase--interactive.sh -- there is a project about this
>  * git/git-submodule.sh -- there was a project about this

Indeed, there are projects about this, although the rebase -i effort is
pushed forward by non-GSoC developers, while the bisect/submodule effort
is/was mainly backed by GSoC students.

As Christian suggested: either propose something else, or talk to the
people who touched these projects last, to coordinate.

>  * git/git-stash.sh

There have been two efforts about this:

https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/508

and

https://public-inbox.org/git/20171110231314.30711-1-joel@teichroeb.net/

Both have died down, and I feel really bad about that because I wanted to
make time to help, and failed.

Nevertheless, they provide a huge head start into converting stash into a
builtin.

Having said that, I feel that there are still current developments going
on that would possibly interfere with the project to convert stash to C.

>  * git/git-merge-octopus.sh
>  * git/git-merge-resolve.sh

These merge strategies seem to be used not all that much, at least I never
heard about speed issues on Windows ;-)

Therefore it is my impression that the effort to convert scripts to
portable C is probably better spent elsewhere.

On the other hand, they are really small, and should be really quick to
convert.

>  * git/git-merge-one-file.sh

Having this as a builtin would not really matter right now, because there
is a design problem in the only two callers: both `git merge-octopus` and
`git merge-resolve` call `git-merge-one-file` in the *dashed* form, i.e.
not as a subcommand of `git`.

The reason is that the `git merge-index` command expects a *merge program*
as command-line argument, not a Git builtin.

On the other hand, this script could be converted into pure C (say, as
merge-one-file.c in libgit.a), then used in merge-index *directly* (i.e.
without spawning anything) when the command-line argument is
`git-merge-one-file`. And then that function could be also used in a new
builtin merge-one-file. A nice three-commit progression.

While t7605-merge-resolve.sh is not super-extensive, I would wager a bet
that it is extensive enough to help this project.

>  * git/git-filter-branch.sh

The `filter-branch` script is not used all that often, as far as I can
tell. If there is ever interest in a faster/more robust version of that
command (by converting it to C), I highly recommend looking at the
rewrite-commits patch series posted a long time ago:

https://public-inbox.org/git/11842671631744-git-send-email-skimo@liacs.nl/

It should be relatively straight-forward to rebase that patch series, and
then to modify it to be command-line compatible to filter-branch.

>  * git/git-difftool--helper.sh
>  * git/git-mergetool--lib.sh
>  * git/git-mergetool.sh

IIRC from my difftool work, the difftool--helper is used also from
mergetool, so logically these belong together.

From my experience on the Git mailing list, I would expect a lot of
pushback here because it is really easy to add/modify the mergetool script
in order to add new helpers, and that would be a lot less easy in a
builtin.

We would have to design a flexible-enough config way to add/modify
mergetool backends to increase the chances that this conversion would be
accepted.

>  * git/git-web--browse.sh

Likewise, this one benefits from being easily modified. It *is* annoying,
of course, to wait for a second or two to have a web page opened, in
particular on Windows, where the help format is HTML.

But probably not worth picking a battle over.

>  * git/git-instaweb.sh

This script tries to set up a GitWeb server as quickly and as painlessly
as possible, on a developer's machine. It does have quite a hefty
requirement in that a web server software (such as Apache) needs to be
installed. It does support a couple other web server software, none of
which is typically installed e.g. on a Windows machine.

Plus, this script is even less useful right now because it does not even
offer cloning/pushing via http-backend.

In my mind, this script is not worth converting. If I were maintaining
Git, I would probably deprecate it and remove it in two or four major
versions.

>  * git/git-archimport.perl
>  * git/git-cvsexportcommit.perl
>  * git/git-cvsimport.perl
>  * git/git-cvsserver.perl
>  * git/git-quiltimport.sh
>  * git/git-svn.perl

These are integrations with other SCM software that may not be all that
prevalent anymore. In particular, the CVS business seems to have died
down. I have not heard of any Arch user using archimport, either.

Subversion is still strong, though, but converting git-svn would be a
project that even I would shy away from: it is just too big.

Oh, and I notice you forgot git-p4.py ;-)

>  * git/git-request-pull.sh
>  * git/git-send-email.perl

If I understand correctly, and I am rather certain that I do, these Git
commands are included in Git mainly for the benefit of the Linux project.

The `git send-email` script turned out to be useful *also* when working on
the Git, the Cygwin and the BusyBox mailing lists.

I am not sure that they serve any greater purpose, so in my opinion they
can stay scripts forever. The `send-email` script in particular would be
quite involved to convert due to the many, many idiosyncracies with all of
the possible options you have via (E)SMTP.

>  * git/git-remote-testgit.sh

This one is completely pointless to convert, as it is only intended to be
used in Git's own test suite.

> I look forward to hearing from you. I will also submit a draft of my
> proposal soon enough.

Soon enough ;-)

I look forward to it!

Ciao,
Johannes

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-21 12:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2018-03-21 19:17   ` Wink Saville
  2018-03-22 17:32     ` Johannes Schindelin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wink Saville @ 2018-03-21 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Paul Sebastian Ungureanu, Git List

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>

> Note! There is one exception, and it is not even a full script. As
> everybody knows who follows my patch series on this here mailing list, I
> consider --preserve-merges one of my stupidest design mistakes ever. To
> undo this (or at least to alleviate the damage I caused), I already
> submitted a patch series to introduce a superseding option:
> --recreate-merges. This patch series is on hold due to the -rc phase of
> v2.17 and will be kicked back into action after v2.17.0 final is out. As
> it is my hope that --preserve-merges can be deprecated in favor of
> --recreate-merges (and eventually even phased out of Git), I would be
> totally cool with git-rebase--preserve-merges.sh being factored out of
> git-rebase--interactive.sh before converting the latter to pure C, and
> leaving the --preserve-merges script alone until the time when it is put
> to rest.
>
> (While I was sleeping, leaving this mail unfinished, to be completed and
> sent today, a patch series was sent to the mailing list that seems to
> perform this refactoring of --preserve-merges into its own script.)

I plead guilty to being the preson refactoring --preserve-merges. But after
reading this and seeing that --recreate-merges is coming and possibly
git-rebase--* moving to C I'm worried I'd be messing things up.

Also, Eric Sunshine felt my v1 changes causes the blame information to
be obscured. So I created a v2 change which keeps everything in the
git-rebase--interactive.sh.

Please see "[RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive" and
"[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] rebase-interactive: ...". I'm looking for
advice on how to proceed.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-21 19:17   ` Wink Saville
@ 2018-03-22 17:32     ` Johannes Schindelin
  2018-03-22 17:50       ` Wink Saville
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2018-03-22 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wink Saville; +Cc: Paul Sebastian Ungureanu, Git List

Hi Wink,

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote:

> I plead guilty to being the preson refactoring --preserve-merges. But
> after reading this and seeing that --recreate-merges is coming and
> possibly git-rebase--* moving to C I'm worried I'd be messing things up.

Don't worry. We will just work together to avoid messing anything up.

> Also, Eric Sunshine felt my v1 changes causes the blame information to
> be obscured. So I created a v2 change which keeps everything in the
> git-rebase--interactive.sh.

Great!

> Please see "[RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive" and
> "[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] rebase-interactive: ...". I'm looking for
> advice on how to proceed.

Sadly, I had almost no time to spend on the Git mailing list today, but I
will have a look tomorrow, okay?

Ciao,
Johannes

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-22 17:32     ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2018-03-22 17:50       ` Wink Saville
  2018-03-23  9:48         ` Johannes Schindelin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Wink Saville @ 2018-03-22 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Git List, Paul Sebastian Ungureanu

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 10:32 AM Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Wink,


>
> > Please see "[RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive" and
> > "[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] rebase-interactive: ...". I'm looking for
> > advice on how to proceed.
>
> Sadly, I had almost no time to spend on the Git mailing list today, but I
> will have a look tomorrow, okay?


NP, I totally understand and, of course, I now have a
version 3: "[RFC PATCH v3 0/9] rebase-interactive:"

Cheers,
Winthrop Lyon Saville III (I had to repsond with my full name although I
always use my nick name, Wink, just because Johannes seems so formal :)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"
  2018-03-22 17:50       ` Wink Saville
@ 2018-03-23  9:48         ` Johannes Schindelin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2018-03-23  9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wink Saville; +Cc: Git List, Paul Sebastian Ungureanu

Hi Wink,

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 10:32 AM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> I now have a version 3: "[RFC PATCH v3 0/9] rebase-interactive:"

Great!

> Cheers,
> Winthrop Lyon Saville III (I had to repsond with my full name although I
> always use my nick name, Wink, just because Johannes seems so formal :)

Yes, I am formal. All Germans are. It's a matter of form.

Ciao,
Johannes

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-03-23  9:48 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-03-18 22:15 [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins" Paul Sebastian Ungureanu
2018-03-19 23:11 ` Christian Couder
2018-03-19 23:41   ` Christian Couder
2018-03-21 12:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-03-21 19:17   ` Wink Saville
2018-03-22 17:32     ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-03-22 17:50       ` Wink Saville
2018-03-23  9:48         ` Johannes Schindelin

git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 git git/ https://public-inbox.org/git \
		git@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index git

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
	nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://7fh6tueqddpjyxjmgtdiueylzoqt6pt7hec3pukyptlmohoowvhde4yd.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://ie5yzdi7fg72h7s4sdcztq5evakq23rdt33mfyfcddc5u3ndnw24ogqd.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://4uok3hntl7oi7b4uf4rtfwefqeexfzil2w6kgk2jn5z2f764irre7byd.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.version-control.git
 note: .onion URLs require Tor: https://www.torproject.org/

code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git