[MonoDevelop] git integration with monodevelop
m.j.hutchinson at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 18:56:47 EST 2008
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Andreas Ericsson <ae at op5.se> wrote:
> Recently, I've started learning C#. More for fun than anything else,
> but one of the mono core devs sniffed me out and said they've been
> thinking of porting jgit to C# to get a working IDE integration in
> monodevelop. Currently, the only option available (with IDE
> integration anyways) to the poor C# devs is either Microsoft's
> crappy VSS, or the less crappy but still far from fantastic
I'm glad you're interested :-)
We do have an interface in MD for integrating VCS providers, and
although the only existing one is SVN, I believe some users are
working on bzr and perforce addins. I'd prefer to see git get
established as the default (D)VCS ...
Currently, to implement a VCS provider one needs to subclass
VersionControlSystem, as demonstrated by the SVN provider:
We may need to extend the interfaces in order to expose more
DVCS-specific features, but I think it's best to find and fix these as
needed rather than speculatively implementing things.
> So in an effort to learn C#, I've decided to play along with this
> (hopefully with some help from the MonoDevelop team), but it seems
> to me that the best place to start is the fledgling libgit2 and link
> that with git-sharp. The primary reason for this is ofcourse that I
> think it'd be a terrible waste to have yet another from-scratch
> implementation of git in a new language (ruby, java, C#, C...). The
> secondary reason is that it would be neat to have more OSS projects
> use my favourite scm.
That's actually one of the reasons we'd like a full managed
implementation --it'd be trivial to include to with cross-platform
Mono-based apps without worrying about architecture, C dependencies,
etc. For example, Tomboy could use git to store its notes, so users
would have a versioned history and better synch/merge. Then, for
example, you could build a Silverlight version that would have full
history in local storage.
> Besides, getting something to rely on libgit2 early on is probably
> the best way to get more people interested in making development of
> it proceed rapidly.
> Thoughts anyone?
I hadn't heard of libgit2 (it looks pretty recent) but it looks
interesting -- at least stable APIs would no longer be a worry.
However, I think fully managed is the way to go, from the point of
view of much easier dependencies (on windows, mac, silverlight and
older linux distros) and licensing.
More information about the Monodevelop-list