From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5536 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2013 10:23:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 31342 Received: (qmail 5736 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2013 10:23:41 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.210.172 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=r7hFtj78lQkWbiVuyyI7TlfPIYpuxRkbLebJCabVbVQ=; b=Pg6lrfGJAh7r8nB8gL5uHUJ1oE9g98/q1jM7lOWBuYQ/AHIn0AflRStV7uw5A15EAd LrEUXA0UT8tu3m3gWvu8zutlFvYEl3Zm6llTEYL842vMkHpqzcBmfSj1947TIojtpSHt duPVtBVJTv65Yc4lmBTSvzGTZk5lbycKuJOefLwyjC0rXhmWnwU8MocbjCh8SpjbuRKA dgFmVKnnVSb/rAIPJTlXA38twpz5jmjbZDIrcI1lBAZ84ubwYKHmm6Os2umMGSb0pVQm L21m8deqLzNBtVXQ48VPCOz52f+DnJORuLifiVgyBVXosRgD/xjftT99Sasuq0tTyBPc 0+jA== X-Received: by 10.50.57.116 with SMTP id h20mr3888471igq.49.1367058213866; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:23:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87haiu2zwk.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> References: <1366462573-15545-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1366462573-15545-3-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <87mwsm3ho5.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <87haiu2zwk.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:52:53 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Completion/Unix/Command/_git: fix shortlog completer To: Frank Terbeck Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org, Nikolai Weibull Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Frank Terbeck wrote: > It definitely is. It does a bit less though. > > It's also more up to date. And the reason for that is simple. Git is > still moving fairly fast, and the _git completion is basically written > and maintained by one guy. One. A few people tried to chip in every once > in a while (myself included), but since nobody of those people really > follows git's development too closely that's a battle you cannot win. Yeah, I saw the shortlog/ blame for each of them. git.git's completer has a _lot_ of contributors. Tons of eyes looking at the code. I follow git's development quite closely -- I'm quite active on the mailing list. Like I said before: I'm not taking sides, so there's no "battle": it's a simple task of picking one completer, and merging the other's strengths into it. > The thing with previous encounters (I'm recollecting from memory here, > and I hope I'm not too inaccurate) is that Felipe pretty much demanded, > not asked - demanded, that all features that slowed the completion down > should be removed, not be made optional - removed, even though the > original author (Nikolai) put a lot of time into realising those > features. He was also completely against putting time into finding the > root cause of the problems, so that maybe the additional features could > be kept and sped up - even though people told him, they liked those > features and they didn't see the impact (because they only get really > annoyingly relevant on large repositories like the linux kernel, which > not everybody works on - there is also not a lot of negative feedback on > these mailing lists or the freenode IRC channel about the _git > completion). Long story short, Felipe's rather hostile tone got him a > pretty short-spoken final reply from Nikolai, which he now shows off to > anyone who does or doesn't ask. Got it. However, why are we talking about him? We're not interested in changing Felipe's behavior (even if we did have some magical way to do that). Let us focus on which completer to work on by looking at the two completers. > This whole _git business is rather off-putting and I'd like to avoid > putting any more time and energy into any "politics" that are involved > on either side. This is no fun. I don't want to get steamed up about > things like this. Why are you getting steamed up? What politics are you talking about? Someone on the internet has a rather strong opinion on zsh's completer, and he tells it to whoever asks him. That's it. > This thing with speed is this: Yes, _git is slower than the bash > completion. But - at least when I last looked - _git will provide much > more useful suggestions depending on the context of the cursor position. > And I - personally - am happy to wait for, say, a second if that means I > can save several seconds selecting the right choice. However, some > completions are too slow on really large repositories. That would be a > useful area to improve - maybe make the slow smartness optional? I don't > know. The question is: which way to start work from? I personally prefer git.git's completer, because snappiness is very important to me. I'm even a little annoyed with Magit, because of the speed issue. > Well, the bash and zsh completion mechanisms are pretty different. There > are some features that zsh provides, that you just can't map to bash. > That makes one source to rule them all rather hard. And besides, I don't > think Felipe would let any feature suggestion in that adds smartness to > bash's completer, that would impact any of his use-cases. Isn't it a matter of writing a larger zsh wrapper? Yes, git-completion.zsh is small. Felipe is nobody. He doesn't control the git project, the completer, or anything else. The git mailing list is filled with extremely sensible rational people. > Thanks for your patches and good luck with whichever completion you > decide to work on! Thanks for the explanation.