From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subject: Re: libgit2 status Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:13:12 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87a9xkqtfg.fsf@waller.obbligato.org> <5038A148.4020003@op5.se> <7vharpv77n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Andreas Ericsson , , To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 27 18:20:57 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T623b-0002M7-H8 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:20:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751877Ab2H0QUt (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:20:49 -0400 Received: from exprod6og104.obsmtp.com ([64.18.1.187]:39818 "EHLO exprod6og104.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751334Ab2H0QUs (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:20:48 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 340 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:20:48 EDT Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob104.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUDueX4aDcCNqcfBmlmBDWjKoeCBccF48@postini.com; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:20:48 PDT Received: from transit.us.cray.com (172.31.17.53) by CFWEX01.americas.cray.com (172.30.88.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:13:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7vharpv77n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:28:12 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > And the last one should really be a "longer term" item. It is more > important for its codebase to get mature and robust, and that can > only happen by various projects and products (e.g. GitHub for Mac) > using it to improve it. I do not think "subtree" (or anything in > contrib/ for that matter) is part of "the core stuff of git", and do > not see a problem; such a move may help both subtree and libgit2. > > Over a much longer timeperiod, I wouldn't be surprised if some "core > stuff" gets reimplemented on top of libgit2 and distributed as part > of the git-core. I am hoping to move git-subtree into core once it performs a little better and I've fixed a couple of bugs. Will basing it on libgit2 delay that process significantly? Six months delay is no problem. 2 years would be problematic. I would be happy to be a guinea pig for libgit2 in order to improve it, but I don't want to significantly impact git-subtree's move to core. I'll have to figure out the right balance there given feedback. -Dave