← Back to team overview

dulwich team mailing list archive

Re: Other changes?

 

On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 20:12 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: 
> On May 19, 2010, at 7:59 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 19:02 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> On May 19, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 18:27 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >>>> I noticed you pushed only one of my most recent set of changes - is
> >>>> there something wrong with the other changesets? If so, can we do
> >>>> some
> >>>> kind of code review on them so I can fix them up, either by
> >>>> installing
> >>>> gerrit somewhere or just doing patchbombs on the dulwich-users  
> >>>> list?
> >>>> Either way, I went ahead and rebased my remaining changes on the  
> >>>> one
> >>>> you cherry picked - they're on github in the usual place.
> >>> I haven't had time to have a look at the other changesets yet, but
> >>> this
> >>> one was trivial enough to cherrypick.
> >>>
> >>> I'll look at the others later this week but will need more time for
> >>> that, possibly after 0.6.0.
> >> I'd really like those cleanups (and the deprecation, so it can come
> >> out sooner rather than later) in 0.6.0 rather than after if possible
> >> since there's a protocol violation fix in there.
> > I'm happy to land the protocol compliancy bits
> Please do, it causes errors on push if nothing needed to be pushed  
> (6c07a270e99122e722f5a1e56289596156d3a2d4, but you'll need to remove  
> the test change since that assumes my other patches, I can split the  
> change if you'd like).
If you can do that, that'd be great. :-)

> > but the GitClient
> > refactoring needs more discussion and I don't want to postpone the
> > release further because of that.
> (disclaimer: this feels like it comes across as pushy - that's not my  
> intent - I merely want to try and have a shot at fixing these for the  
> release if that's at all possible)
> I'm open to suggestions on the code, the only thing I wasn't happy  
> with was all protocol objects taking a can_read function, but it was  
> the only sane way I could find to make things work. If you can look at  
> that patch (bf9d8a90601d2aad0dfc57f0860196d5589e9718) and provide  
> feedback, I'll be happy to see what I can do about fixing it in short  
> order. I don't think the other ones should be terribly controversial  
> (as far as I can see, anyway), they're mostly just organizing and  
> cleaning up the client code.
I need to take a closer look at the code but at least two changes
concern me - the lifetime of GitClient used to be just for one request,
now it's living longer. SSHVendor is deprecated but bzr-git relies on
it existing so it can override it, e.g. with the Paramiko SSH Vendor.

> Out of curiosity, why the hurry to get 0.6 out?
It's already long overdue. I was going to do a release roughly three
weeks ago but then there were some more bugfixes that were coming up
that I wanted to wait for. Since I'd like to spend more time discussing
and testing the GitClient changes I'd prefer to wait with landing those
changes.

I was doing pretty regular releases for Dulwich earlier and I'd like to
go back to that. Hopefully that should also make it less important for
particular changes to make it into this release.

I'll also try to communicate my plans with regards to the releases a bit
better. I've asked some people in private whether there was anything
they thought would need to be fixed before 0.6.0, but I should've asked
here on the list.

Cheers,

Jelmer 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Follow ups