Re: [PATCH] build: get rid of the notion of a git library

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2013, 18:06 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s02KaMaMUz4618n5RqVqVSXzr_D9rPS1uesy2XEdqnq5A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vppvsbkc3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> What are the examples you have in mind, code that we want to forbid
>>> standalone from using?
>>
>> init_copy_notes_for_rewrite(). Nothing outside the 'git' binary would
>> need that. If you disagree, show me an example.
>
> "Nothing would need that", if you are talking about the current
> codebase, I would agree that nothing would link to it.
>
> But that is not a good justification for closing door to others that
> come later who may want to have a standalone that would want to use
> it.  Think about rewriting filter-branch.sh in C but not as a
> built-in, for example.

Why would anybody rewrite filter-branch, and not make it a builtin? It should be a builtin. That's the whole point of builtins.

Moreover, if you are going to argue that we shouldn't be closing the door, then why not link ./builtin/*.o to libgit.a? If you are seriously considering the highly unlikely hypothetical standalone git-filter-branch scenario, you should consider the even more likely scenario where somebody needs to access code from ./builtin/*.o; that scenario is not even hypothetical, we know it's happened multiple times, and we know it's going to happen again.

-- 
Felipe Contreras