On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Moreover, if you are going to argue that we shouldn't be closing the >> door, then why not link ./builtin/*.o to libgit.a? > > Huh? It does not make any sense. builtin/*.o files have cmd_foo() > that are expected to be called from git.c::main(), but libgit.a > files are linked with no constraints whose main() they are linking > with.
>> If you are >> seriously considering the highly unlikely hypothetical standalone >> git-filter-branch scenario, you should consider the even more likely >> scenario where somebody needs to access code from ./builtin/*.o; that >> scenario is not even hypothetical, we know it's happened multiple >> times, and we know it's going to happen again. > > That is exactly why I said that builtin/*.o should be refactored to > pick "does not have to be in builtin" bits, which will result in a > better division of labor. Reusable bits should live in the library, > while a particular implementation of command remain in builtin/* > that utilize the reusable bits. > > You still haven't justified why we have to _forbid_ any outside > callers from calling copy_notes_for_rewrite(). Because only builtins _should_ use it. I asked you for an example, and you said a hypothetical standalone 'git-filter-branch' might use it, but you have not explained why it should be standalone, when it's clear it should be a builtin. If we assume your argument is valid for the hypothetical 'git-filter-branch', if that's the case, then it would be even more reasonable to assume that there will be other standalone binaries that would want to use all sort of functions from ./builtin/*.o. Let's put an example: reset_index(). Some standalone program wants to use that function. What do you we do? The shortest route is to make it non-static, and add it to builtin.h. But that would not be enough, we need the infrastructure prepared for that; link libgit.a with ./builtin/*.o. I don't think that's the way to go, but your line of argumentation leads directly there; if we are worrying about anything that any potential standalone program could want, then we should worry about reset_index() not being easily accessible to them. IMO we should be clear and say no; standalone programs should not access copy_notes_for_rewrite(), that's for builtins. If we move all the code that potential standalone programs could want to libgit.a, it wouldn't be a library at all, and it would basically contain everything. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
