If you're willing to look at the source of a branch to know that it
touches only the UI, why would you not be willing to look at the source
of a plugin to do the same thing?
It's a silly point. If you're willing to look at what your shell script
does and validate that it doesn't do LD_PRELOAD tricks or swap out git
core pieces, why wouldn't you be willing to accept a plugin after a
similar level of review, rather than stating outright that you would
*never* use them?
Shell scripts allow for a fragile system because they could include C
code snippets which they then compile and LD_PRELOAD. Sure, they "allow
for" a fragile system -- but the author has to go out of their way to
make it so. Similarly, folks writing bzr plugins need to take explicit
actions to monkeypatch existing code (as opposed to adding a new
transport/storage format/command/etc but leaving the old ones alone).
If you trust the author of your shell script not to build their own
LD_PRELOAD at runtime, why don't you trust the author of your bzr plugin
not to monkeypatch in replacements to core code if they say they aren't?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html