On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Peff, > > On Wed, 31 May 2017, Jeff King wrote: > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:27:21PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> > > My intent in putting it into the actual git binary was that it could >> > > also be useful for collecting build-time knobs from users (who may be >> > > using a binary package). Like: >> > > >> > > >> > > http://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ >> > > >> > > We haven't filled in that NEEDSWORK yet, but I'd rather see us go in >> > > that direction than remove the option entirely. >> > >> > FWIW it also helped Git for Windows. >> > >> > The two additional bits we added to the build options (the commit from >> > which Git was built and the architecture) did not hurt one bit, either. >> > >> > In other words, it would make my life a lot harder if --build-options were >> > moved to a test helper that does not ship with the end product. >> >> Cool, I'm glad it has helped already. If you have further bits added to >> the output, is it worth sending that patch upstream? > > Yes, of course. > > The day only has 24h though and I am still stuck with other things I try > to contribute that seem to be requiring a lot more effort (mostly trying > to make my case that there are certain coding paradigms I find too sloppy > to put my name on) from my side to get accepted than I'd like. > > So yeah, as soon as the queue drains a bit more, I have tons more patches > ready to go upstream.
Thanks both. It makes sense to discard this patch. I wasn't sure whether anyone really cared about this, and thought a patch was a better starting point of discussion.
