From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add Code Compare v2.80.4 as a merge / diff tool for Windows
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:03:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vipcsoxwa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGBnuOaze=opbK+hH2s92enHuN2NUuKOVsTY4ZKgc3aWsX2-g@mail.gmail.com> (Sebastian Schuberth's message of "Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:06:51 +0200")
Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not have a strong reason to vote for or against inclusion of
>> yet another tool as mergetool backends (read: Meh), but what this
>
> That sounds almost as if you'd like to keep the number of directly
> supported mergetools small (I'm not talking about about the length of
> the list of mergetools in the docs right now). I was always thinking,
> the more mergetools, the better. Do you think differently?
It depends on the pros-and-cons between the cost of forcing many
people to see a list of supported backends with yet one more item
(the list only grows and rarely shrinks) and the benefit of the
subset of users who can now use it. I couldn't measure how widely
the particular commercial program is used from your proposed commit
log message, and that is where my "for or against" comes from.
>> patch does to Documentation/merge-config.txt is actively unwelcome.
>>
>> As we discussed earlier in
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/201913/focus=201976
>>
>> the longer term direction is to reduce the names of tools listed
>> there.
>>
>> I am somewhat saddened to find your name in that thread; you should
>> have been aware of that discussion when you wrote this patch.
>
> I still agree that not listing all mergetools in multiple places is a
> good thing. But doing the whole stuff of extending --tool-help for
> git-mergetool and git-difftool to return a simple list that can be
> used in git-completion.bash etc. IMHO is a separate topic and out of
> scope of this patch.
Exactly. If you know that is the long term direction, I would have
preferred you _not_ to touch any existing descriptions of the tools
(not even changing them to refer to "--tool-help") in this patch, in
order to avoid unnecessary conflicts with the topic of unifying the
list of tool backends, which can be written and cooked separately.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-09 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-08 20:31 [PATCH] Add Code Compare v2.80.4 as a merge / diff tool for Windows Sebastian Schuberth
2012-08-08 21:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-09 7:06 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2012-08-09 16:03 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2012-08-09 16:22 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2012-08-10 4:39 ` David Aguilar
2012-08-10 8:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Schuberth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vipcsoxwa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sschuberth@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.