Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

If you want this script to remain in contrib, please:

 a) Write at least a few tests
 b) Write some documentation
 c) Explain why it cannot live outside the git.git repository like other
    tools. [1][2][3]

(Adding Marius, the original author to the CC-list)

Uh, why is such a burden required all of a sudden? contrib/README
mentions no such requirements, and the scripts have been accepted (and
maintained) since.

contrib/README mentions clearly the expectation that these scripts
eventually move to the core once they mature. This is never going to
happen for these.

Yes, *expectation*. Not requirement.

That's right, but these tools fail all expectations.

quoted

It also mentions that inactive ones would be proposed for removal, and
this one is clearly inactive. It has 9 commits (if you count the one
that changes the execution bit).

It mentions that Junio *might* suggest things to be removed, not that
things *should* be removed if left unmaintained.

That's right.

And this script is not unmaintained, it's simply just still working.

Prove it.

Either way, if there was people actively caring about these scripts,
there should be cleanups, tests, documentation. But there's nothing.

quoted

quoted

Besides, you say "No activity since 2010" - this is not the case,
bc380fc is from November 2013.

You think changing the execution bit of a file is considered "activity"?

Well, now we're getting into semantics, which I don't care so much
about.

Convenient.

It shows some sort of interest in the scripts, at least.

Not it doesn't. Jonathan Nieder updated the execution bit on a bunch of
scripts in contrib, these being just in the way. It doesn't show
interest at all.

quoted

quoted

And there's already *some* documentation in the scripts themselves.

That's nice. So you can just copy that into a README.

Feel free to scratch that itch yourself, you're the one inventing new
requirements here.

If you care about these scripts, you have an interesting way of showing
it.

quoted

quoted

Please stop your pointless crusade that'll only break other people's work-flows.

If you care about these scripts, it should be trivial for you to add at
least a few tests, souldn't it?

Again, testing this is not my itch. Feel free to scratch that one
yourself, but please don't remove the script.

If you don't care that these scripts keep working properly, I don't see
why anybody else would.
 

quoted

Please tell me how exactly will your work-flow be broken. More
specifically, tell me why your scripts cannot be moved outside of git,
like git-extras[1], git-deploy[2], git-ftp[3], and countless other
tools.

Moving the script out of the repo makes it less convenient to bisect
issues with MSVC, as it depends heavily on the top-level Makefile.
Moving it out would require figuring out what version of the script
matches a given git revision, which is a hassle.

The script doesn't depend on the version of the Makefile, and proof of
that is that is has *never* been changed even though the Makefile has.

If you do:

 % cd ~/git
 % ./contrib/buildsystems/generate

You can do:

 % cd ~/git
 % ~/buildsystems/generate

And the result would be *exactly* the same.

That is not a reason.

-- 
Felipe Contreras