On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Why not just revert 5b8e6f85f (shrink git-shell)? It was a nice try. If it > had not proved as a maintainance burden, it would have had merits. But who > these days cares whether git-shell takes 300K or 30K in the light of that > it goes out of the way anyway by execing some other process at the first > opportunity? Sounds reasonable to me. Doing this in a clean way would require more restructuring in the code. So far this change started a chain of changes where each change tried to solve one issue and caused a more severe one. Though it would not only be 5b8e6f85 to be reverted but also 78568448 that tried to fix up problems that 5b8e6f85 caused. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@xxxxxxxxx "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Attachment:
pgpRkgAuH9tbS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
