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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 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?

> What do we gain from this?

Organization.

> A lot of code in libgit.a is only used by builtin commands,
> e.g. fetch-pack.c, should we move it to?

Yes.

> I ask because I moved
> fetch-pack from builtin out because of linking issues and I don't want
> the same happen to sequencer.c.

I'm sure those linking issues can be solved.

I don't see why libgit.a couldn't eventually be the same as libgit2.
We need better organization tough (e.g. builtins/lib.a).

If you are arguing favor of a more messy setup, then we should link
all the builtin/*.o to libgit.a, because the current situation just
doesn't cut it.

For example, init_copy_notes_for_rewrite() cannot be accessed by
sequencer.c, and while it's possible to move that function (and
others) to libgit.a, it doesn't make sense, because it can only be
used by builtins.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]