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

> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
>>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Felipe Contreras
>>>>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> This code is only useful for cherry-pick and revert built-ins, nothing
>>>>>> else, so let's make it a builtin object, but make sure 'git-sequencer'
>>>>>> is not generated.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, the convention is builtin/foo.c corresponds to git-foo
>>>>> (and maybe more). Why make an exception for sequencer?
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> And while we are at "why not", why don't you fork git?
>>
>> That's not an answer.
>
> Neither is "Why not?"

>>> and not meant to be. If you aim something more organized,
>>> please show at least a roadmap what to move where.
>>
>> I already did that; we move code from libgit.a to builtin/*.o
>
> what code besides sequencer.c?

>> until libgit.a == libgit2. Done.
>
> Read up about the introduction of libgit2, why it was created in the
> first place instead of moving a few files around renaming libgit.a to
> libgit2.a. Unless you have a different definition of "==" than I do.