From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875CC1F626 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 21:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=NyMs0PCM; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229687AbjBQViv (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:38:51 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47600 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229523AbjBQVit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:38:49 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B3AC60A48 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id cn2so9301505edb.4 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:38:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CLTGjf9wqlQF7C4kf5b7pTzt/Jvc7N4OKSy5Yfdjdfw=; b=NyMs0PCMO333OKjMXs4mp2ld3LOdALWLG2vk0ETehDfGe8fgRzHgKoxl1QA18xEeaQ VDQUQ3+c/oe839GzdGvnhTGv4+r3CqFlErw/OIooOoZde4kUQM57fUXBMujz+1ASx9Gf yc5Exf6gl/KAm9no+9wlTwpdi39AHcnh+Pqa1zYVaDMYFRYsbREZ9fYVIPd2Ar5DN6Y+ Vzv+yBywRB36jCRNT2beLz2VGSrLU+Mo5+WXwzbFeSQJpBZyrPyDAqAPlGGxuv8MZWW4 SDKYjfrlOpHN7j57HmfPlZtT8zRmOyKt9upfFuUEbEtulzyk65NoRywPT4HkxwO4TFps ssnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CLTGjf9wqlQF7C4kf5b7pTzt/Jvc7N4OKSy5Yfdjdfw=; b=b1/uBMCXDsKQE7Y+I5y4IqWnQF8TF3r7bKFFGapT+1+uXbfpa2PoE9omNJGpxxT3// sTfATPhT6yqn6o1yToYmzdP2550FXiWSovtWu+iJu3MzbLmKWoWchT8/Tw3dNIUJ+/IH KWj7+SPWMuRpMJHwtfl+tu0WCwENCst1mu6kZ/m3ouCPnuyvhwXABvZc0UvpqPyNrJLe ULAkL9q78wS3nyvJfQ0nanh8LhuUOqNYeleV9rL0Ub4I7pePNo9eCFgjcotJ0SlQSa4h PdLriZ6k1FAsJKwBoTDtmXeKOysJa/wyyBu2B9tbspVCB6ac/rlpgd+h4cpHto/OxGV8 3yVg== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVm373KIjCQYkTEAJip+ixMpmSFnpNW2J15jH1meMox6lHR1400 UiGJv6JhRyEDq5U9krnrZx+TQhMBJpsABLRZDUJH2ixcdT7pDg9A X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/dLQgY8/4KGoCBzl949Enm3fl6DAvP6C8S5VOZNm/aZ3wrZL81FaH/PUr1Xwnm9AEcxPH8VzZ+CcEiC6PcfOY= X-Received: by 2002:a50:c344:0:b0:4aa:a4df:23fc with SMTP id q4-20020a50c344000000b004aaa4df23fcmr1545528edb.1.1676669926646; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:38:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Emily Shaffer Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:38:34 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal/Discussion: Turning parts of Git into libraries To: "brian m. carlson" , Emily Shaffer , Git List , Jonathan Nieder , Jose Lopes , Aleksandr Mikhailov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:21 PM brian m. carlson wrote: > > On 2023-02-17 at 21:12:23, Emily Shaffer wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Hey, > > > I'm looking forward to the discussion! > > While I'm not personally interested in the VFS work, I think it's a > great idea to turn more of the code into libraries (or at least make it > more library-like), and so I'm fully in support of this approach. Yeah, I expect this sentiment is true for most contributors. And I'm really hoping there are other things which aren't on my radar, but other contributors are enthusiastic about, that would also be served by this kind of library approach. For example, I seem to remember you saying during the SHA-256 series that the next hashing algorithm would also be painful to implement; would that still be true if the hashing algorithm is encapsulated well by a library interface? Or is it for a different reason? > When > I send patches in the future, I'll try to make sure that they're > friendly to this goal. That's awesome to hear. Thanks, brian. - Emily