On 2023-09-08 19:08:05 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Josselin Poiret <dev@jpoiret.xyz> skribis:
> 
> > Right, although I wouldn't necessarily say that the former doesn't have
> > a proper API, but rather that it has a Unix-oriented API.  That leads to
> > performance issues on e.g. Windows but on Linux I'm not sure there's
> > much of a difference.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > We could consider replacing the guile-git dependency with another
> > library built directly on top of git-minimal, and have this be a
> > dependency of Guix.  Not ideal though, and not really scalable either:
> > we can't just add every VCS as direct dependencies.
> 
> I cannot imagine a viable implementation of things like ‘commit-closure’
> and ‘commit-relation’ from (guix git) done by shelling out to ‘git’.

I am sure I must be missing some part of the contract of the function, but at
least the commit-relation seems fairly straightforward:

    (define (shelling-commit-relation old new)
      (let ((h-old (oid->string (commit-id old)))
            (h-new (oid->string (commit-id new))))
        (cond ((eq? old new)
               'self)
              ((zero? (git-C %repo "merge-base" "--is-ancestor" h-old h-new))
               'ancestor)
              ((zero? (git-C %repo "merge-base" "--is-ancestor" h-new h-old))
               'descendant)
              (else
               'unrelated))))

I would argue it is even somewhat more readable than the current implementation.

> I’m quite confident this would be slow

My version is ~2000x faster compared to (guix git):

    Guix: 1048.620992ms
    Git:  0.532143ms

Again, I am sure I must have miss something, either in the implementation or in
the measurements, because it is pretty hard to believe there is so much room for
improvement.

The full script I used is attached to this email.

> and brittle.

In general git plumbing command are design to have stable CLI interface in order
to be usable in scripting.  So I am not sure where the brittleness would come
from.

> 
> It looks like there’s no option other than carrying the two
> implementations.

Assuming I made no mistake (hard to believe), it is probably worth exploring the
feasibility of just shelling out to the git binary some more.

> 
> ~~~
> 
> Years ago, Andy Wingo sketched a plan for GNU hackers to implement Git
> in pure Scheme.  That was on April 1st though, so people mistakenly
> assumed it was a joke and the project was never carried out.
> 
> I digress, but I wonder: is there not even a viable Haskell or OCaml
> implementation of Git?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>

W.

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.