Re: Git completion - contributing to git.git

[ÅtÄpÃn NÄmec <stepnem@xxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Kearns <dougkearns@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 03:05, Nicolas Sebrecht
>> <nicolas.s-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> (Why am I not included in the Cc? ÂI am the original and principal
>> author, after all. ÂThe minuscule amount of attribution it would have
>> provided would have been nice. ;-)
>
> We know who wrote it.  I'm scared to touch it lest you yell at me.
>
>>> What about starting contributing to Git ('contrib/completion' looks like
>>> a good path) ? ÂCould Git completion contributors send their patches to
>>> the Git project too ?
>>
>> Iâd rather not, to be honest. ÂItâs always a pain to have two files,
>> as they can become out of sync when patches are sent to one repository
>> and not the other, users donât know which version to use, and so on.
>
> +1
>
> There's nothing special about Git either.  What of the other 500 odd
> completion functions and 'associated' projects?

What's special about Git is that new options are added and various
tweaks done _very_ often. The Zsh Git completion, apart from being
buggy/unfinished (some of the problems were fixed recently), is also
out of sync, because nobody really follows Git development and updates
it accordingly.

IMO having _git inside the Git tree is a good idea. The Bash completion
is also maintained together with Git, by the Git developers, and I
wouldn't be surprised if it were much better than the Zsh one (rather,
I'd be surprised if it weren't ;-).)

The only problem I see is whether there are really enough Zsh users
following Git development and at the same time able and willing to
maintain the completion script.

ÅtÄpÃn