On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:36:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra 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?

Sorry, I don't have patches. It is a hard problem for which I do not
have the solution, which is kind of my point.

For the record, I am not _against_ any code organization that might be
useful for lib-ification later. I just do not see it as an interesting
step to be discussing if you want to know whether such a lib-ification
effort is feasible.

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