Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I also think we may want to make a fundamental shift in our view of > thread support. In the early days, it was "well, this is a thing that > modern systems can take advantage of for certain commands". But these > days I suspect it is more like "there are a handful of legacy systems > that do not even support threads". > > I don't think we should break the build on those legacy systems, but > it's probably OK to stop thinking of it as "non-threaded platforms are > the default and must pay zero cost" and more as "threaded platforms are > the default, and non-threaded ones are OK to pay a small cost as long as > they still work". Good suggestion.
