On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Wouldn't it make sense then to concentrate on the patches that we do have? > 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. If you don't find it interesting, don't do it. I already did this step (Move sequencer to builtin), the question is; does it go forward, or should it be rejected? -- 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