On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
>> I already mentioned elsewhere that I think it would be fine to massage
>> libgit.a in that direction. I even joined the conversation pointing out
>> some cases where Felipe's ruby module would break. But I do not think
>> that moving code in and out of libgit.a is an important first step at
>> all. That is simply code that no library users would want to call, and
>> is easy to deal with: move it out. The hard part is code that users
>> _would_ want to call, and is totally broken. Patches dealing with that
>> are the hard obstacle that people working in this direction would need
>> to overcome. But I do not see any such patches under discussion.
> Forget the rest; this makes it clear.  Thanks, and sorry for all the 
> confusion.
> So, reorganization is not the first step.  Can you please post an
> example patch illustrating what needs to be done, so we can follow?

If you have a code-base with 100 functions, 10 of which make sense in
a public library, instead of going ahead to fix those 10 functions, it
makes sense to *first* separate those 10 functions, and *then* clean
them up for public usage.

But let's assume that Jeff is right and this is not the first step. It
doesn't matter; I already started that step and created builtin/lib.a.
Are you going to throw away that because it's not "the first step"?

Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to