On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
Wouldn't it make sense then to concentrate on the patches that we do have?
> 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.
If you don't find it interesting, don't do it. I already did this step
(Move sequencer to builtin), the question is; does it go forward, or
should it be rejected?
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