From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:29:50 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20130609043444.GA561@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130609175554.GA810@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130609182246.GE810@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra , Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Brandon Casey , Jonathan Nieder To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 09 20:30:01 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UlkNK-0004uc-Cc for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:29:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751814Ab3FIS3y (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:29:54 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:60895 "EHLO mail-lb0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751751Ab3FIS3x (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:29:53 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w10so2915453lbi.40 for ; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hF4zUS861z0SXSly/11HNvUuTKC6J5rggGHrucIAue8=; b=bmN4m8FDOyiuSz5IJZ84m16xNkFnaZsxjIBFWHpwzb5aEp/tLjNqbr07UTwSb5mOWf ZcrHY6DDFoX7eO3L446PDJEnunsk2nR9tcBuiDZBAnfsPdZ+iSytgWdIBisswKr83mZk a9HYJawPJqAyDaTdd/+wLc6NbGTJUmTxJVPXX+olxQrR6AN+9dGrylmelHjUlZp3STNg c0+Dbxm/9tum18B7BsR4BhtEI3rJ9QgP+5jepT37qJzI3ZP9vpdD8lL1b6+q+F9Qwxzh tlqgyRXkyrjhCdVoE133JMncEWNDqaZqGnE/Vqf9HVIkJoYEK9lrVcjNXDlp4eMIYdBM ERkw== X-Received: by 10.152.27.170 with SMTP id u10mr3380160lag.45.1370802591000; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.59.202 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 11:29:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130609182246.GE810@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jeff King 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 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. 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? -- Felipe Contreras