Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 9, 2013, 18:22 UTC
Message-ID: <20130609182246.GE810@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0n0kkNZo_Xt1oT5GL-TxZP0faDExxyH3vU-+hy4uEUEtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:36:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> 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.

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.

-Peff