dulwich team mailing list archive

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Augie,

On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 13:07 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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:
> >> 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. :-)
> I'll ping you when I get that done, probably this evening US time.
Thanks.

> >> > 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,
> Wow, that was *totally* undocumented. Plus, the class hierarchy
> totally implies something different.
Yeah, it's bad it's not very well documented. All the more reason to be
 prudent in this area. :-) I'd also like to get it right this time, not 
end up having to change it for the next release again.

> > 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.
> If that deprecation isn't acceptable I'm fine with changing it -
> dependency injection just felt like a significantly cleaner way to go.
> Maybe both would be nice?
I'd rather have one way of doing this. What's the reason for preferring
a function rather than a class?

> >> 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.

> Yes please - I'm not terribly comfortable relying on dulwich at the
> moment, since its development and release cycle has been fairly opaque
> (and things that break hg-git sometimes land without warning).
Which things in particular have done this? I've tried to be careful
about not breaking the important APIs or at least deprecating public
APIs before removing them completely so I'd like to hear if we break
things in hg-git. We've only broken bzr-git once since 0.4.0.

> Also, dulwich@lists doesn't count as public to my mind - almost nobody
> can see that, and membership is closed (I'm not even on it). I'd much
> prefer either that list was open, or we conduct discussions on a
> public list that everyone can see.
I'm happy to do those sorts of announcements on dulwich-users@. FWIW the
archive for dulwich@ is open, it's just the team membership that is
moderated.

Cheers,

Jelmer