Re:The Git source code audit, viewed as a Rust programmer
by ironmagma on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @12:02PM
(#34506414)
I wouldn’t hold my breath. The scope of Git is quite large and Git-Oxide is just getting started. What I’d like to see is the Git core team adopt Rust gradually for certain subprograms.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Git source code audit, viewed as a Rust programmer
by kibwen on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @12:25PM
(#34506801)
I don't know how far he intends to take it, but the author of gitoxide (which is just a library, like libgit2) uses it to power a git CLI called gix. As of October it looks like it can do fetches and clones: https://github.com/Byron/gitoxide/discussions/623 .
Since the git CLI is subcommand-based, it wouldn't be too hard to provide replacements for individual git subcommands one at a time. If you replaced git clone, push, pull, commit, checkout, and rebase, that would suffice for 95% of git invocations.
Re:The Git source code audit, viewed as a Rust programmer
by johnny22 on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @12:19PM
(#34506693)
that would fit how git itself evolved. A fair amount of code was in perl and stayed that way for awhile before being written in C.
Re:The Git source code audit, viewed as a Rust programmer
by cerved on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @12:56PM
(#34507291)
many of the porcelain commands are or used to be in perl/bash
Re:The Git source code audit, viewed as a Rust programmer
by nusaru on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @02:51PM
(#34509216)
A question that comes to mind: should all Perl scripts be rewritten in C before introducing Rust into the code base? Practically speaking, this probably might never happen, but perhaps the trade-off in technical debt is worth it.