Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 12, 2012, 22:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vhanq3n97.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAH5451nVqnS0UFBVDW5=Xmaj_6geiw7D7J4mR7922U+074W2qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> On 13 December 2012 04:49, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> "bisect" with "<used-to-be, now-is> vs >> <good, bad>" issue unsettled > > Would you want to see this issue resolved in-script before a porting > attempt was started?
Honestly, I do not care too much either way, but for the people who want to work either on the rewrite-to-C or on the semantics issue, it would be easier to manage it that way.
And that "issue resolved in-script" does not have to be "implemented in-script". The resolution could be to declare that it is not worth it and a promise to call the two states <good, bad> and with no other names. It would give a semantics for the rewriters-to-C can start working on that is stable enough ;-).