Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Free the name Git.jl for GitCommand.jl #25

Closed
carstenbauer opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #28
Closed

Free the name Git.jl for GitCommand.jl #25

carstenbauer opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #28

Comments

@carstenbauer
Copy link
Contributor

carstenbauer commented Feb 19, 2020

Now that we have the great GitCommand.jl I suggest that we rename this package to something else and make GitCommand.jl the new Git.jl. (came up on discourse)

As far as I understand, this package mainly bundles legacy code from Base that was thought to be useful to be kept around in a package. It is barely maintained - my PR from over a year ago was the last to be merged - has no documentation, and is IMHO somewhat akward to use.

GitCommand.jl on the other hand

  • installs git via Git_jll.jl
  • provides a clean git interface
  • adds a git REPL mode, etc.

I suspect that users searching for how to access git functionality in Julia would always want GitCommand.jl instead of this package, despite the premium name. I suggest we change the names to reflect this.

What do you guys think, @DilumAluthge, @ararslan, @StefanKarpinski?

PS: Perhaps we could alternatively have two Git.jl's with different UUIDs. But I don't even know how selecting which package to work with/install works in such a scenario. And frankly, I think that the code in this package isn't worth the trouble (please correct me if I'm wrong).

@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

I’d support it.

The problem is that I don’t want to delete packages from General.

Perhaps we could do the same trick we did for PackageCompiler/PackageCompilerX? @KristofferC

@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

PS: Perhaps we could alternatively have two Git.jl's with different UUIDs. But I don't even know how selecting which package to work with/install works in such a scenario. And frankly, I think that the code in this package isn't worth the trouble (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Yeah let’s try to avoid this situation.

@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

DilumAluthge commented Feb 19, 2020

Perhaps we could do the same trick we did for PackageCompiler/PackageCompilerX? @KristofferC

To elaborate for those that aren’t familiar: We would make a pull request to this repo that deletes all the existing content and replaces it with the content of GitCommand.jl. Then we would make a breaking release of Git.jl. We would archive GitCommand.jl and add a link redirecting them to this repo.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants