Re: Proposal/Discussion: Turning parts of Git into libraries

From: Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2023, 21:38 UTC
Message-ID: <CAJoAoZmMQ-ROdCp0=4oaFa836-PqxwYntnRSBSzzJc5chp16eQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y+/v15TyCbSYzlVg@tapette.crustytoothpaste.net>

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:21 PM brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

>
> On 2023-02-17 at 21:12:23, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> > Hi folks,
>
> Hey,
>
> > I'm looking forward to the discussion!
>
> While I'm not personally interested in the VFS work, I think it's a
> great idea to turn more of the code into libraries (or at least make it
> more library-like), and so I'm fully in support of this approach.

Yeah, I expect this sentiment is true for most contributors. And I'm really hoping there are other things which aren't on my radar, but other contributors are enthusiastic about, that would also be served by this kind of library approach.

For example, I seem to remember you saying during the SHA-256 series that the next hashing algorithm would also be painful to implement; would that still be true if the hashing algorithm is encapsulated well by a library interface? Or is it for a different reason?

> When
> I send patches in the future, I'll try to make sure that they're
> friendly to this goal.

That's awesome to hear. Thanks, brian.

 - Emily