On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > david@xxxxxxx writes: > > >> Post-checkout trigger is something I can say I can live with > >> without looking at the actual patch, but that does not mean it > >> would be a better approach at all. > > > > we agree on this much at least :-) > > > >> I would not be able to answer the first question right now; that > >> needs a patch to prove that it can be done with a well contained > >> set of changes that results in a maintainable code. > > > > you cannot answer the question in the affirmitive, but you could say > > that any changes in that area would be completely unacceptable to you > > (and for a while it sounded like you were saying exactly that). in > > which case any effort put into preparing patches would be a waste of > > time > > I tend to disagree. It's far from a waste of time. While, as I > said, I am skeptical that such a patch would be small impact, if > it helps people's needs, somebody will pick it up and carry > forward, even if that somebody is not me. It can then mature > out of tree and later could be merged. We simply do not know > unless somebody tries. And I am quite happy that you seem to be > motivated enough to see how it goes. There's certainly the possibility that a changeset could consist of some patches that make the index/filesystem handling more clear, some patches that make the tree/index handling more clear, and some patches that allow a hook to replace one of these entirely. Things can be a lot more acceptable if the intrusive changes are improvements for the maintainability of the normal case, and the special case code is no longer intrusive at all. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - 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
