[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in bui
From: |
Maxim Cournoyer |
Subject: |
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts) |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Sep 2023 22:16:41 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi!
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> So given there's no technical reasons not to use libgit2, I'd use that
>> and keep the closure size down.
>
> For the record, that’s a 6% increase:
>
> $ guix size guix | tail -1
> total: 633.0 MiB
> $ guix size guix git-minimal | tail -1
> total: 675.7 MiB
>
> (Of course it all adds up; I’m not saying we can dismiss it.)
As Simon pointed out, it'd be more after wrapping 'git' with coreutils
and possible util-linux on its PATH.
> In the context of <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65866> plus the lack of
> GC in libgit2 discussed in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65720>, my
> inclination is to include that hard dependency on Git.
>
> That’s not a happy choice for me, but it has the advantage of solving
> two immediate problems.
>
> I would revisit it as soon as libgit2 supports shallow clones (which is
> coming, as you write)
This isn't "coming", it's already been released :-).
> and GC (or a workaround to that effect). SHA256 may also soon be a
> requirement: we’ll need to be able to clone repos that use it.
>
> How does that sound?
Yeah, 'git gc' is lacking from libgit2. I'm not against adding
dependency on the real 'git' CLI, but at that point, as Simon mentioned,
I see little reason to keep libgit2 around for much longer, given it
performs worst than git CLI in every aspect. I doubt forking processes
on GNU/Linux would cause a performance hit compared to using libgit2,
especially given how optimized git appears to be (at least compared to
libgit2).
So, I think we need to agree on the future of libgit2 in the big picture
and decide to invest in it or let it in favor of just using git.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
- Re: comparing commit-relation using Scheme+libgit2 vs shellout plumbing Git, (continued)
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Simon Tournier, 2023/09/11
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/09/11
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Ludovic Courtès, 2023/09/14
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Simon Tournier, 2023/09/14
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts),
Maxim Cournoyer <=
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Ludovic Courtès, 2023/09/18
- Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Simon Tournier, 2023/09/18
- Re: bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts, Ludovic Courtès, 2023/09/19
- Re: bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/19
Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts), Vagrant Cascadian, 2023/09/11