On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:36:42PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > 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? Sorry, I don't have patches. It is a hard problem for which I do not have the solution, which is kind of my point. For the record, I am not _against_ any code organization that might be useful for lib-ification later. I just do not see it as an interesting step to be discussing if you want to know whether such a lib-ification effort is feasible. -Peff -- 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