Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin

Jeff King wrote:

Yes, I'm well aware of these: libgit2 is LGPL, because of which these three proprietary applications have been made possible. Isn't it completely orthogonal to the discussion about how best to lib'ify git.git though? From what I understand, fc is not interested in building another application leveraging libgit.a or libgit2; he's interested in improving libgit.a and getting more users.

What is this task you are discussing? fc is talking about improving libgit.a and getting an official git library with many users. Answer the question: what should we do now?

1. Start moving irrelevant code out of libgit.a, and use inspiration
from libgit2 to improve it (this might or might not involve taking
code from libgit2).  Get _users_ of libgit.a via ruby bindings (or
something) asap, so it puts pressure on fixing it.

2. Wait indefinitely until libgit2.git magically becomes ready to be
usable by git.git as-is.  Then throw libgit.a out the window, and
rewrite git.git to call into libgit2.a instead [*1*].

What you seem to be saying is "3. Work on libgit2 (and abandon git.git?)" [*2*], or worse: 2. fc is in favor of 1. Unless you are in favor of _not_ improving libgit.a, don't stand in his way: you might personally think that it is a difficult (or impossible) task, but that's no reason to stop fc from trying. I personally think his goal is admirable, and I'm nobody to say that it cannot be done: therefore, I will review his patches and help him in whatever little way I can.

[Footnote]

*1* You have dismissed 1 as being unworkable, but do you realize how unrealistic this sounds?

*2* git.git has _far_ more users and a _lot_ more contributors. Don't be unwelcoming to contributors by asking them to go away and work on something else. The three proprietary applications you have given as counter-examples (?) is not helping anyone.