From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: What's in git.git Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:27:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <7vodt0zbhc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060928093623.GJ20017@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 28 15:27:52 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSvvT-00089p-N4 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:27:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965417AbWI1N1i (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:27:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751887AbWI1N1i (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:27:38 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:8623 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751886AbWI1N1h (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:27:37 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2006 13:27:36 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO dumbo2) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp044) with SMTP; 28 Sep 2006 15:27:36 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-X-Sender: gene099@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20060928093623.GJ20017@pasky.or.cz> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:39:11AM CEST, I got a letter > where Junio C Hamano said that... > > > + Git.pm lost Git.xs; its remnant still remains, though. > > Notably, we still compile x86_64 with -fPIC, and the top > > level Makefile has {BASIC,ALL}_{CFLAGS,LDFLAGS} distinction > > and INSTALL talks about perl/blib/arch/auto. I am torn > > between removing these and keeping them; on one hand, they > > are not needed and makes new developers wonder what the > > distinction between BASIC and ALL are. On the other hand, > > we may eventually would want to reintroduce Git.xs in the > > future and keeping them might help us. But on the third > > hand ;-), we can always resurrect it from the repository and > > that is the point of using git to keep track of the project, > > so removing them might not be such a big deal. I'd like to > > decide between this two and push it out to 'master' before > > doing the -rc1. > > FWIW, I'd say kill it all (perhaps except BASIC_*, I don't know about > that one) - we indeed can easily resurrect this, and that was the > presumption with which I've killed the rest of Git.xs. There's no point > in keeping legacy cruft around when we can take it back from the > history. > > Perhaps we could throw a note to perl/Makefile saying > > # If you are thinking about adding Git.xs support, please note > # that we have already been there before - see the #next branch > # history for more-or-less working one already added, and also > # the reason why it was removed for now. > > so that noone wastes their time. Having ranted so often about Git.xs, I feel like I have to apologize. It would be a better idea (IMHO) to put an effort into having the _option_ to use Git.xs, since it is so much more efficient. If it is a strict opt-in, I think it could remain in "next", and it would be much more likely that people took up the ball and worked towards libifying git. Ciao, Dscho