On Thursday, January 11, 2024 12:06 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: >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. Thank you for the clarification.
