Re: Git GSoC 2014

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch> writes:
>>
>>> Motivation: I believe that migrating to libgit2 is the better approach,
>>> medium term, than rewriting everything ourselves to be nice, clean and
>>> thread-safe.  I took a shot a while ago at making the pack reading code
>>> thread-safe, but it's adding mess when we could simply replace it all by
>>> the already thread-safe libgit2 calls.  It also helps shake out
>>> incompatibilities in libgit2.
>>
>> That would either require forking libgit2 for Git use or stop dead any
>> contributions to that rather central part of the git codebase from
>> contributors not wanting their contributions to get reused in binary
>> proprietary software.
>>
>> It would also mean that no serious forward-going work (like developing
>> new packing formats or network protocols) can be done on a pure GPLv2
>> codebase any more.  So anybody insisting on contributing work under the
>> current Git license only would be locked out from working on significant
>> parts of Git and could no longer propose changes in central parts.
>>
>> Now this can all be repealed by the "developing the atomic bomb does not
>> mean that one has to use it" argument but even if one does not use it,
>> the world with and without it are different worlds and occupy mindshare
>> and suggest "solutions" and "diplomacy" involving it.
>>
>> So this is definitely a large step towards a situation where erosion of
>> the existing license and related parts of the community becomes more
>> attractive.
>>
>> There is the rationale "we can always say "no" at the end".  How do you
>> explain this "no" to the student who invested significant amounts of
>> work into this, in a project proposed by the Git developers?
>>
>> This definitely should not be "we'll think about it if and when that
>> project is finished" material.
>
> Yes, all of this is true.  However, you are painting a big devil on the
> wall.