On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I.e. use the supplied custom function to do proprietary magic, such as
reading the object lazily from elsewhere over the network. And we will
never get that magic bit back.
As a maintainer I'd never accept such a patch. I'd ask for the
code under read_object_custom, or toss the patch on the floor.
But that doesn't stop them from distributing the patched sources
like above, keeping the fun bits in the closed source portion of
the executable they distribute.
Maybe I just think too highly of the other guy, but I'd hope that
anyone patching libgit2 like above would try to avoid it, because
they'd face merge issues in the future.
the issue that I see is that libgit2 will be (on most systems) a shared
library.
what's to stop someone from taking the libgit2 code, adding the magic
proprietary piece, and selling a new libgit2 library binary 'just replace
your existing shared library with this new one and all your git related
programs gain this feature'
they would only face merge issues if they need to keep up to date with
you, and git makes it pretty easy to maintain a fork if you only have to
do one-way merging (rere)
David Lang
--
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
