Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > My opinion on this: > > * It's low priority. I think the order of priority should be (high to > low) > > 1) Finish and get the current series into pu (we're almost there, it's > not time to back off and restart something new). > > 2) Work on the other series that uses the new API. We don't need to > change _all_ the uses, but we do need a few tens of them to > validate the fact that the new API is nice and convenient to use. > > 3) Get new actual features for the user (tidy up config files, give > error messages based on numbers). > > You probably won't finish everything, so just think: if the GSoC ends > between 1) and 2), how serious is it? if it ends between 2) and 3), > how serious? If reverse the order, then the risk of having nothing > finished and mergeable at the end is high. If it happens, the > community may or may not take over and finish it ... > > * Still, making sure that the (file, line) is doable later without too > much change is good. So, if indeed, moving all code to another file is > required, then it may make sense to do it now to avoid code move > later. Good thinking. As long as the code is prepared, it is a good idea to start small and bite off only we can chew at once, do things incrementally. >> 1. config-hash.c had to be shifted to config.c entirely. > > Why? I guess one reason is the use of struct cf (are there others?), but > moving just > > config_hash_callback > config_hash_add_value > git_configset_add_file > > to config.c should do it. Then, config.c could use config-hash.c. I am not sure why you guys needed a new file config-hash.c to begin with, actually. Besides, "hash" in its name is an implementation detail (what it gives us is a way to grab values for configuration variables from a config set) which we would rather not want to see. -- 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