Re: [boost] [Git] Documentation update

Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Documentation update
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-12 11:00:15

on Mon Feb 11 2013, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> NOTE: Part of this discussion was within the release team. But it was
> suggested that it should also be generally public. Hence I'm raising some
> of the same issues from the private discussion.
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> on Mon Feb 11 2013, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> on Sun Feb 10 2013, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I ask because the testing will rely on dulwich git which does not talk
>> >> > at all with bitbucket (it seems the bitbucket git server works
>> >> > differently.. not that I blame it given the disfunction that is the
>> >> > git server protocol).
>> >>
>> >> Oh, that's rather lame.  Is there a reason you're not going to use
>> >> libgit2 instead of dulwich?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes.. The python bindings for libgit2 are terribly/unusably incomplete.
>>
>> Surely they're complete enough to allow you to clone and pull, no?  What
>> more do you need?
>>
>
> Why would one assume that? 

Because anything less would kind of suck.

> First there is no binding to "git_clone" <
> https://github.com/search?q=git_clone+repo%3Alibgit2%2Fpygit2&type=Repositories&ref=advsearch&l=>.
> So it's a nonstarter at step zero. 

That kind of sucks.

> Second there are no bindings for submodules/subrepos. Which might be
> an additional nonstarter if the git_clone didn't recurse clone/pull
> subrepos.
> 
> I was faced with either implementing some of the additional
> clone/pull/checkout/update code with dulwich or likely implement even more
> for libgit2. 

libgit2 covers it (http://stackoverflow.com/a/8553826/125349); it's just
not in the pygit2 bindings, I guess.

> Hence I'm sticking with dulwich. Since at least that gives the
> advantage of being pure Python.
>
> My initial problems where mostly because I was trying to do things that
> where not actually supported by the git client/server design.. Of course I
> didn't know that because the git design is essentially non-existent and
> anything that exists is ad-hoc and minimal.. AFAICT.

Did you ask the "git people" about how to do these things?

> My latest problems don't have much to do with dulwich at this point.. More
> of not being able to do anything interesting (i.e. efficient) because of
> the limitation of the git server and system. 

That's surprising to me since I've always found git to be quite speedy.

> Yes, sad to say I've had to learn way more than I really wanted about
> git. 

This also surprises me.  What, exactly, are you trying to do that is so exotic?

> And it has only confirmed my educated suspicions about it. But I'll
> get something working eventually. Just will not be soon.
>
> Sadly-and-somewhat-frustratedly.. Rene.

Sorry this has been frustrating/saddening.

-- 
Dave Abrahams