On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:57 PM <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 9:21 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:44 PM <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:59 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > >[...] > >> >Would you be okay with the following alternative: requiring that all > >> >Rust code be optional for now? > >> > > >> >(In other words, allow you to build with USE_RUST=0, or something > >> >like that. And then we have both a Rust and a C implementation of > >> >anything that is required for backward compatibility, while any new > >> >Rust-only stuff would not be included in your build.) > >> > >> To address the immediate above, I assume this means that platform > >> maintainers will be responsible for developing non-portable > >> implementations that duplicate Rust functionality > > > >This doesn't at all sound like what I thought I said. The whole proposal was so that > >folks like NonStop could continue using Git with no more work than setting > >USE_RUST=0 at build time. > > > >Why do you feel you'd need to duplicate any functionality? > > I think I misunderstood. What I took from this is that all new functionality would be in Rust, which would require a custom implementation in C for platforms that did not have Rust available - if that is even practical. Did I get that wrong? I think you somehow missed the word optional? I did say that new functionality should be allowed to be Rust only (unlike existing functionality), but I'm not sure how you leaped to assuming that all new functionality would be in Rust. Further, I also don't understand why you jump to assuming that all new functionality needs to be supported on all platforms. The point of the word "optional" in my proposal is that it is not required. So, say, if git-replay is in Rust, well you've never had git-replay before in any release, so you haven't lost any functionality by it being implemented in Rust. And existing things (merge, cherry-pick, rebase, etc.) continue working with C-only code. But you may have one less optional addition. At least that was _my_ proposal -- that Rust be optional for now. It does differ from what I think Taylor was originally proposing, but that's why I brought it up as an alternative proposal.
