Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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. > > I have no issue with that. Some people also mumbled about auditability, > which I did not find particularly convincing. The result would look like this two-patch series. [1/2] shell: do not play duplicated definition games to shrink the executable [2/2] Build-in "git-shell" -- 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
