Re: What's in git.git

> Dear diary, on Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:39:11AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> 
> >   + Git.pm lost Git.xs; its remnant still remains, though.
> >     Notably, we still compile x86_64 with -fPIC, and the top
> >     level Makefile has {BASIC,ALL}_{CFLAGS,LDFLAGS} distinction
> >     and INSTALL talks about perl/blib/arch/auto.  I am torn
> >     between removing these and keeping them; on one hand, they
> >     are not needed and makes new developers wonder what the
> >     distinction between BASIC and ALL are.  On the other hand,
> >     we may eventually would want to reintroduce Git.xs in the
> >     future and keeping them might help us.  But on the third
> >     hand ;-), we can always resurrect it from the repository and
> >     that is the point of using git to keep track of the project,
> >     so removing them might not be such a big deal.  I'd like to
> >     decide between this two and push it out to 'master' before
> >     doing the -rc1.
> 
> FWIW, I'd say kill it all (perhaps except BASIC_*, I don't know about
> that one) - we indeed can easily resurrect this, and that was the
> presumption with which I've killed the rest of Git.xs. There's no point
> in keeping legacy cruft around when we can take it back from the
> history.
> 
> Perhaps we could throw a note to perl/Makefile saying
> 
> 	# If you are thinking about adding Git.xs support, please note
> 	# that we have already been there before - see the #next branch
> 	# history for more-or-less working one already added, and also
> 	# the reason why it was removed for now.
> 
> so that noone wastes their time.