Open orgads opened 1 month ago
It's unlikely I'll ever be making any change in this repo.
Why not? And what about pushing your changes upstream? Is it feasible?
Why not?
It's work.
And what about pushing your changes upstream? Is it feasible?
Might be feasible. I won't be doing it though.
What will you do with repos that will use sha256 for instance? Or any other features that may affect the existing workflow.
I most likely will do nothing.
I'm willing to help with merging (in either direction). The question is if you're open for such a PR.
Sure, if you send a clean PR, I'll merge it.
Oh great :)
I'm on it then.
I got to it because I'm trying to debug why worktree doesn't work on Windows, and when I compiled gitstatus I had many compiler warnings coming from libgit2 :)
FWIW, my personal advice would be to not use gitstatus. If I manage to muster enough will power for the final contribution to gitstatus/powerlevel10k, that would be getting rid of gitstatusd. Since the time I wrote it, git has been getting faster, so it's not as awfully slow to use git nowadays. The big advantage is that it won't require ongoing maintenance to stay on top of git development.
Interesting. Is it possible to rerun the benchmarks you did back then, and see if upstream git (or libgit2) had closed the gap (especially on Windows, I'm concerned about fs performance and process spawning time on msys...)?
Must be possible but it's work.
The good thing is that you can try various solutions for yourself and see whether plain git is fast enough for you.
Sure, I'll give it a shot. Thanks for your responsiveness.
Is there a way to switch between gitstatus and "git status" in powerlevel10k?
There is POWERLEVEL9K_DISABLE_GITSTATUS=true
but it incidentally also disables async git status computation. My remark above referencing the final contribution was about removing this coincidence.
Is there a reason this fork isn't merged from upstream libgit2?