Andreas Ericsson <> writes:

> Politically, I'm not sure how keen the git community is on handing
> over control to the core stuff of git to a commercial entity, but it
> doesn't seem to be a dying project, so I'd say go ahead and do it.

I do not think commercial-ness of any entity comes into the picture.

The only three things that matter are license compatibility (I think
libgit2 licensed under GPLv2 + linkage exception is doing just fine
in that department), maturity and quality of it (it is in early
development phase), and the openness of the development process (it
could do better by finding ways to better interact with the
mainstream git development discussion that happens here in the
longer term).

And the last one should really be a "longer term" item.  It is more
important for its codebase to get mature and robust, and that can
only happen by various projects and products (e.g. GitHub for Mac)
using it to improve it.  I do not think "subtree" (or anything in
contrib/ for that matter) is part of "the core stuff of git", and do
not see a problem; such a move may help both subtree and libgit2.

Over a much longer timeperiod, I wouldn't be surprised if some "core
stuff" gets reimplemented on top of libgit2 and distributed as part
of the git-core.

There will be substantial integration and logistics hassles ahead of
us before that can happen, though.  E.g.  we could point at libgit2
as our submodule, but that is not the only way to make git depend on
libgit2; it could just be a Build-Depends like we depend on libz.
Looking at the build dependency of libgit2 itself, I do not think
tighter integration of the libgit2 itself into the git-core is not
likely to happen very soon, and also is not necessarily a good thing
to do.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to