From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:52:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] revert: Remove sequencer state when no commits are pending
Message-ID: <CALkWK0n3UWYYw5Vyby_1hJfaTTWj1-EZdCv0F2siiB6vLCjK1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110727154830.GA29924@elie>

Hi,

Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Hm, yes.  I'd definitely like to see a tighter coupling between "git
>> commit" and the sequencer as it becomes more generalized.
>> Would you advocate this specific change now?  If so, I'll write an
>> implementation right away.  I was wondering whether you'd like such a
>> tight coupling at this stage.
>
> If "tight coupling" means "builtin/commit.c calls a function declared
> in sequencer.h", then yes, I think it should be fine.

Okay.  I'll write something now.

> In an ideal world it would also be exposed as plumbing ("git
> cherry-pick --commited"?), for use by hypothetical porcelains that
> want to use "git commit-tree" et al to simulate what git commit does.
> But probably best to wait on that part until someone needs it and can
> tell what a good interface would look like.

Right.  We'll refrain from venturing into this part for now.

-- Ram