On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:11:04PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 07.08.2013 20:28, schrieb Fredrik Gustafsson:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:11:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Thanks, will replace the top two commits and queue.  Looks like we
> >> are getting ready for 'next'?
> > 
> > I'm a bit curious about if we should move towards a reentrent libgit
> > (which would for example make multithreading easier) or not.
> I'm not aware of such an effort in core Git (I always thought that
> libgit2 is the project doing what you seem to aim for).
> > If so, I suggest that this patch only use die() in builtin/. However I
> > know that there's a lot of die() all over libgit today, I'm curious
> > about what direction we're heading.
> The die() calls are just one part. Global variables are another issue,
> we have memory which is implicitly freed on exit ... so unless we
> commit ourselves to fix all those issues I see no point in moving the
> die() calls into builtin/ in my series.

Okay, thanks for your answer.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Fredrik Gustafsson

tel: 0733-608274
e-post: iv...@iveqy.com
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