librelist archives

« back to archive

Remote Management features?

Remote Management features?

From:
Tony Miller
Date:
2011-03-25 @ 19:20
Hi, 

I was checking out Rugged and I am very interested in the remote management 
features listed in the README:

Remote Management # TODO
------------------------

    remlist =
    Rugged::RemoteList.new(repo)
    array = remlist.list
      rem = remlist.add(alias, url)

These are listed as TODO, does this mean they are not implemented in libgit2, or
just not implemented in Rugged yet? Looking at the libgit2 code, I couldn't find
anything about remote management there.

-Tony

Re: [libgit2] Remote Management features?

From:
Scott Chacon
Date:
2011-03-25 @ 19:21
It is not implemented in either. This functionality would sort of be a
thin layer on top of the config file stuff, which isn't done yet.

Scott

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Tony Miller <mcfiredrill@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was checking out Rugged and I am very interested in the remote management
> features listed in the README:
>
> Remote Management # TODO
> ------------------------
>
>    remlist =
>    Rugged::RemoteList.new(repo)
>    array = remlist.list
>      rem = remlist.add(alias, url)
>
> These are listed as TODO, does this mean they are not implemented in libgit2, or
> just not implemented in Rugged yet? Looking at the libgit2 code, I couldn't find
> anything about remote management there.
>
> -Tony
>

[libgit2] SWIG?

From:
Kenneth Reitz
Date:
2011-03-25 @ 19:23
Has anyone investigated using SWIG to generate some of the libgit2 bindings?

-- 
Kenneth Reitz
http://kennethreitz.com/contact-me

Re: [libgit2] SWIG?

From:
Vicent Marti
Date:
2011-03-25 @ 20:03
Hey Kenneth,

SWIG is terrible. Actually, it's more than terrible, it's terribad.
Terribad is a higher level of terrible.  I have a deep, burning hatred
for that particular software project.

But that's not the reason why we're not using SWIG: The thing is that
we are very lucky to have a lot of awesome people maintaining libgit2
bindings for pretty much every relevant programming language there is;
they are all trying their best to write bindings that look and feel
native for their respective languages, and they give back very useful
feedback on the design of the C API and of specific issues they
encounter when using the library.

Replacing this whole ecosystem with shitty autogenerated bindings that
do a 1-1 port of the C API would be stupid, and would show a total
lack of respect for all the amazing contributors that are working on
making Git feel usable and integrated in their favorite programming
languages.

Long live the hand-written bindings. They are a lot of work -- but so
is everything good in life.

Cheers,
Vicent

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Kenneth Reitz <me@kennethreitz.com> wrote:
> Has anyone investigated using SWIG to generate some of the libgit2 bindings?
> --
> Kenneth Reitz
> http://kennethreitz.com/contact-me
>
>

Re: [libgit2] SWIG?

From:
Andrius Bentkus
Date:
2011-03-26 @ 11:08
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Vicent Marti <vicent@github.com> wrote:

> Hey Kenneth,
>
> SWIG is terrible. Actually, it's more than terrible, it's terribad.
> Terribad is a higher level of terrible.  I have a deep, burning hatred
> for that particular software project.
>
> But that's not the reason why we're not using SWIG: The thing is that
> we are very lucky to have a lot of awesome people maintaining libgit2
> bindings for pretty much every relevant programming language there is;
> they are all trying their best to write bindings that look and feel
> native for their respective languages, and they give back very useful
> feedback on the design of the C API and of specific issues they
> encounter when using the library.
>
> Replacing this whole ecosystem with shitty autogenerated bindings that
> do a 1-1 port of the C API would be stupid, and would show a total
> lack of respect for all the amazing contributors that are working on
> making Git feel usable and integrated in their favorite programming
> languages.
>
> Long live the hand-written bindings. They are a lot of work -- but so
> is everything good in life.
>
> Cheers,
> Vicent
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Kenneth Reitz <me@kennethreitz.com>
> wrote:
> > Has anyone investigated using SWIG to generate some of the libgit2
> bindings?
> > --
> > Kenneth Reitz
> > http://kennethreitz.com/contact-me
>

SWIG is dead. It is a nice idea, but it is done so so so wrong.
The code looks ugly and it produces even uglier code. People who ask about
"what about SWIG" have never used it.