From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5EE915E88 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (cpebc4dfb928313-cmbc4dfb928310.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.251.108] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 40BD3qfi1797209 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:03:52 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Elijah Newren'" Cc: "'Taylor Blau'" , "'Junio C Hamano'" , "'Dragan Simic'" , References: <006b01da4412$96c6c500$c4544f00$@nexbridge.com> <007c01da4420$10a7b700$31f72500$@nexbridge.com> <008701da442f$b2dfe420$189fac60$@nexbridge.com> <009c01da4439$f70beef0$e523ccd0$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Introducing Rust into the Git project Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:07:35 -0500 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <012801da448f$29434ee0$7bc9eca0$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQNL0k5wzhXZATyUnQ76Vxjn4eCV+QKEQ1wBALH7sDwDPprtZwK9Rr3fAtB2bewByXD01gDMKZblA0KzuhcCEw2HmQKWnpH2rT1VBEA= On Thursday, January 11, 2024 12:06 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: >On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:57=E2=80=AFPM wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 9:21 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: >> >On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:44=E2=80=AFPM = wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 7:59 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: >> >[...] >> >> >Would you be okay with the following alternative: requiring that >> >> >all Rust code be optional for now? >> >> > >> >> >(In other words, allow you to build with USE_RUST=3D0, or = something >> >> >like that. And then we have both a Rust and a C implementation = of >> >> >anything that is required for backward compatibility, while any >> >> >new Rust-only stuff would not be included in your build.) >> >> >> >> To address the immediate above, I assume this means that platform >> >> maintainers will be responsible for developing non-portable >> >> implementations that duplicate Rust functionality >> > >> >This doesn't at all sound like what I thought I said. The whole >> >proposal was so that folks like NonStop could continue using Git = with >> >no more work than setting >> >USE_RUST=3D0 at build time. >> > >> >Why do you feel you'd need to duplicate any functionality? >> >> I think I misunderstood. What I took from this is that all new = functionality would >be in Rust, which would require a custom implementation in C for = platforms that did >not have Rust available - if that is even practical. Did I get that = wrong? > >I think you somehow missed the word optional? > >I did say that new functionality should be allowed to be Rust only = (unlike existing >functionality), but I'm not sure how you leaped to assuming that all = new >functionality would be in Rust. Further, I also don't understand why = you jump to >assuming that all new functionality needs to be supported on all = platforms. The >point of the word "optional" in my proposal is that it is not required. = So, say, if git- >replay is in Rust, well you've never had git-replay before in any = release, so you >haven't lost any functionality by it being implemented in Rust. And = existing things >(merge, cherry-pick, rebase, etc.) continue working with C-only code. = But you may >have one less optional addition. > >At least that was _my_ proposal -- that Rust be optional for now. It = does differ from >what I think Taylor was originally proposing, but that's why I brought = it up as an >alternative proposal. Thank you for the clarification.