Re: [PATCH 2/3] Move copy_note_for_rewrite + friends from builtin/notes.c to notes-utils.c
- From
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
- Date
- Jun 12, 2013, 19:14 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALKQrgfPktWOcUKnWecQcE-wMVwTqMES112nHcqnCrZzLLqOeg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s3KAeDPo1Cw8eFsU=A6H7oUGmf+eLAMvGV+R2_hPXHLbw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> wrote: >>>> This is a pure code movement of the machinery for copying notes to >>>> rewritten objects. This code was located in builtin/notes.c for >>>> historical reasons. In order to make it available to builtin/commit.c >>>> it was declared in builtin.h. This was more of an accident of history >>>> than a concious design, and we now want to make this machinery more >>>> widely available. >>>> >>>> Hence, this patch moves the code into the new notes-utils.[hc] files >>>> which are included into libgit.a. Except for adjusting #includes >>>> accordingly, this patch merely moves the relevant functions verbatim >>>> into the new files. >>>> >>>> Cc: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> >>>> Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> >>> >>> I wonder where you got that idea from. Did you come up with that out thin air? >> >> Obviously not. I should add >> >> Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > > You are still not explaining where the idea came from. And you are > doing that with the express purpose of annoying.
Truly, I am not trying to annoy anyone. I have not followed the preceding discussion closely, and I wrote the patch based solely on one paragraph from Junio's email[1].
> Where did the idea come from?
I got it from Junio. I do not know if I might have accidentally plagiarized something you already submitted to the mailing list, although I would be surprised if that was the case, since - as far as I understand - you are opposed to this solution. Furthermore, I thought you might not like having your name mentioned in a patch you do not agree with, but if you think differently I have no problem adding your name. I don't know what kind of attribution you would prefer though:
Originally-envisioned-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>? NAKed-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>? Something else?
...Johan
[1]: Quoted from <7vehc8a05n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > There is only one right solution. If a useful function is buried in > builtin/*.o as a historical accident (i.e. it started its life as a > helper for that particular command, and nobody else used it from > outside so far) and that makes it impossible to use the function > from outside builtin/*.o, refactor the function and its callers and > move it to libgit.a.
-- Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net> www.herland.net