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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 9, 2013, 18:11 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s33wC0p_K8zhovWrgMua9qzZ3064BFxJ+m00Lt39ZPPQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0n0kkNZo_Xt1oT5GL-TxZP0faDExxyH3vU-+hy4uEUEtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Jeff King wrote:
>> I already mentioned elsewhere that I think it would be fine to massage
>> libgit.a in that direction. I even joined the conversation pointing out
>> some cases where Felipe's ruby module would break. But I do not think
>> that moving code in and out of libgit.a is an important first step at
>> all. That is simply code that no library users would want to call, and
>> is easy to deal with: move it out. The hard part is code that users
>> _would_ want to call, and is totally broken. Patches dealing with that
>> are the hard obstacle that people working in this direction would need
>> to overcome. But I do not see any such patches under discussion.
>
> Forget the rest; this makes it clear.  Thanks, and sorry for all the confusion.
>
> So, reorganization is not the first step.  Can you please post an
> example patch illustrating what needs to be done, so we can follow?

If you have a code-base with 100 functions, 10 of which make sense in a public library, instead of going ahead to fix those 10 functions, it makes sense to *first* separate those 10 functions, and *then* clean them up for public usage.

But let's assume that Jeff is right and this is not the first step. It doesn't matter; I already started that step and created builtin/lib.a. Are you going to throw away that because it's not "the first step"?

-- 
Felipe Contreras