From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
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:

> 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 ;-).