Junio C Hamano wrote: > drafnel@xxxxxxxxx writes: > >> From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <drafnel@xxxxxxxxx> > >> @@ -306,6 +305,7 @@ BUILT_INS += git-fsck-objects$X >> BUILT_INS += git-get-tar-commit-id$X >> BUILT_INS += git-init$X >> BUILT_INS += git-merge-subtree$X >> +BUILT_INS += git-mktag$X >> BUILT_INS += git-peek-remote$X >> BUILT_INS += git-repo-config$X >> BUILT_INS += git-show$X >> @@ -423,6 +423,7 @@ LIB_OBJS += log-tree.o >> LIB_OBJS += mailmap.o >> LIB_OBJS += match-trees.o >> LIB_OBJS += merge-file.o >> +LIB_OBJS += mktag.o > > This is unusual for a builtin. Why didn't it migrate to builtin-mktag? I didn't know how to do it. I was trying not to do a code move and a code change at the same time. I didn't think I should move the non-builtin mktag.c to builtin-mktag.c, and then after I modified mktag to be a builtin I knew I was moving it to builtin-tag.c so I didn't see a point to renaming it. Also, I decided about those things _before_ I realized how small the changes would be to mktag to make it a builtin. Do you think the modified patch you posted conflicts with the idea that "code move should be separate from code change"? -brandon -- 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
