From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:49:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin
Message-ID: <20130609184943.GH810@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0nsJ5ds5v7auoqN7_vXhOoasJ3y99njZt5btPVqRCF2zA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:14:36AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

> Jeff King wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> So, what is the problem?  We are moving towards what we think is the
> way forward.  Nobody said that it is the theoretical best, but it's
> _much_ better than doing nothing, no?

I thought I already said: there is a lot of global state that is assumed
to be wiped between various functions and git commands. For example, you
cannot just call cmd_log twice in the same process and get the right
answers. I haven't seen a proposal for dealing with that.

> Then whom are we to ask about this feasibility?  All the core
> contributors (including Junio) are in the CC.  Nobody has said
> anything.  So, are you proposing that we sit and ponder over our
> theoretically-indeterminate-feasibility problem?  There is no magic
> bullet, Jeff.  We write code, and we fix bugs as and when they crop
> up; there's really not much else anyone can do.  Help by writing code,
> or reviewing someone else's code.

I mentioned a bug above. How are you going to fix it? Where is your
patch to review?

-Peff