Junio C Hamano wrote:
I fully agree that supporting C-level linkage is worthy, and
should be one of our longer term goals.
Excellent.
A similar 1.0 goal would be to document porcelain's use of the .git
directory. For instance, stacked git uses .git/patches,
.git/patchdescr.tmpl and .git/p
> I certainly don't think the lib interface is anywhere near stable:
> Linus accepted my change to index_fd far too easily.
Noted, thanks for the info.
(This makes a lot of sense, Git is evolving very fast. I haven't
looked at Git since mid-April, and I'm very much impressed at the
difference be
Bryan Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Darcs and git work together to determine the minimal amount
> that needs to go into libgit1.so. It gets blessed by being
> documented, and doesn't change until libgit2.so.
>
> I'd like to see this added to Junio's list of "1.0" goals.
I should menti
Darcs and git work together to determine the minimal amount
that needs to go into libgit1.so.
Hold on... Nobody is speaking about *binary* compatibility, it's
source-level compatibility that we need. There is absolutely no
reason to introduce the complexities of shared libraries into the
pi
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
There are three ways to do that:
(1) require that the users put a suitable libgit.a in /usr/local/lib
before building Darcs, and distribute a tarball of Git from
darcs.net;
I was under the impression that the stablest interface to git was the
command li
5 matches
Mail list logo
