From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B634E1F4B4 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725710AbgJBUsB (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:48:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:55411 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725446AbgJBUsB (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:48:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6932EA092C; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:47:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=EdwwJXDZNIBierM8RXZqI3csgo8=; b=UpDsOp ZiobBYEATmJa3WIOBX2xGtsLt+xDK9zpZpefh1K83YPwET6SrDANjvJyMdCafB9N z0rD3fPz5bW34Fm9tIZ+QGOzn0JIOJ4VXQzhQ/oWsRB/MpIxdXz2s5qJM1Kq4i83 q6l2Rct4AXs1USmGsyUbiYka02sVHjdHLKfJI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=COnRoxbB+nbNdzI0Wuaeo1Xah/nSIuhH C4IMWU6vnnJrJe2sI3aX3ETU+W1V3SFgjhmZQwzbX5ImBBpFRZPShXELdQKYnyAr U5M6r+tru8cdQDWDkNYM2uqNXzR+Wc3u1vBqGS0DtQ1qZuEbRJ6HX7KfLEijAMun fQW8G5IU5YQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6155EA092B; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:47:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DED3BA092A; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:47:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Jeff King , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] reftable: utility functions References: <4190da597e65bce072fa3c37c9410a56def4b489.1601568663.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:47:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:01:50 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8E32DE56-04F0-11EB-A5AC-2F5D23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> This commit provides basic utility classes for the reftable library. >> >> Since the reftable library must compile standalone, there may be some overlap >> with git-core utility functions. > > My position on this idea to duplicate functionality in order to somehow > pretend that the reftable code is independent of Git's source code has not > changed. The above may be sufficient between you and Han-Wen, and a few selected others who still remember, but please do not forget that we are collaborating in the open. It would help those who are learning open source interactions by watching from sidelines, if you spelled out what your position is or at least left a pointer to a previous discussion. FWIW, I think it is a mistake to try to make this directory so that it can be lifted out of our code base and used independently, as it has to create unnecessary friction to the code when used here. It is not like other code that we are not their primary intended audience and we simply "borrow" from them (e.g. xdiff/ & sha1dc/). The previous paragraph agrees with my guess of your position, but perhaps you have something else in mind. I dunno. > Be that as it may, the CI build failures impacted my notifications' > signal/noise ratio too much, so here goes (Junio, I would be delighted if > you could apply this on top of your branch): Quite honestly, this close to the first preview release for 2.29, I'd rather drop this round from 'seen' and expect an updated topic, than piling fixup on top of fixups. Thanks.