Hi,

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote:

quoted text
> > Except that zucchini is meant for the sequencer, which can implement it 
> > much more efficiently (i.e. it does not have to check out HEAD~$n).  Also, 
> > it must not rely on reflogs being enabled.
> > 
> > sequencer is plumbing, while the reset mantra is porcelain.
> 
> Do I get you right, that the builtin sequencer must not use any of the 
> porcelain like cherry-pick, reset and even commit?

AFAIAC cherry-pick and reset, and even commit, are not "pure" porcelain: 
you can rely on their exit code and to a certain extent on their output.  
Although I would rather use commit-tree from a script than commit.

I'd probably even use git update-ref instead of reset --soft, but then, I 
_would_ use cherry-pick.

So there is a lot of gray.

quoted text
> (Perhaps I got it wrong, but it doesn't seem "right" to me, if a 
> plumbing uses porcelain.)
> 
> Currently my prototype *uses* these porcelain, so is it a porcelain in 
> its current state? ;)

I would say as long as it is meant to be used by a human, it is porcelain.  
And I do not think that git-sequencer falls into that category.

So it should avoid pure porcelains, such as "git show", and use the 
(robust) low-level tools instead.

But I feel quite silly talking about that at length; I think that you can 
use whatever gets a prototype done, and then go on and make it a builtin.

Ciao,
Dscho

--
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