Re: hard dependency on Git? (was bug#65866: [PATCH 0/8] Add built-in builder for Git checkouts)

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi!
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> So given there's no technical reasons not to use libgit2, I'd use that
>> and keep the closure size down.
>
> For the record, that’s a 6% increase:
>
> $ guix size guix | tail -1
> total: 633.0 MiB
> $ guix size guix git-minimal | tail -1
> total: 675.7 MiB
>
> (Of course it all adds up; I’m not saying we can dismiss it.)

As Simon pointed out, it'd be more after wrapping 'git' with coreutils
and possible util-linux on its PATH.

> In the context of <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65866> plus the lack of
> GC in libgit2 discussed in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65720>, my
> inclination is to include that hard dependency on Git.
>
> That’s not a happy choice for me, but it has the advantage of solving
> two immediate problems.
>
> I would revisit it as soon as libgit2 supports shallow clones (which is
> coming, as you write)

This isn't "coming", it's already been released :-).

> and GC (or a workaround to that effect).  SHA256 may also soon be a
> requirement: we’ll need to be able to clone repos that use it.
>
> How does that sound?

Yeah, 'git gc' is lacking from libgit2.  I'm not against adding
dependency on the real 'git' CLI, but at that point, as Simon mentioned,
I see little reason to keep libgit2 around for much longer, given it
performs worst than git CLI in every aspect.  I doubt forking processes
on GNU/Linux would cause a performance hit compared to using libgit2,
especially given how optimized git appears to be (at least compared to
libgit2).

So, I think we need to agree on the future of libgit2 in the big picture
and decide to invest in it or let it in favor of just using git.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim