From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:49:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20130609184943.GH810@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130609043444.GA561@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130609175554.GA810@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130609182246.GE810@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Felipe Contreras , Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Brandon Casey , Jonathan Nieder To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 09 20:49:53 2013 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 1Ulkga-00006L-Hy for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:49:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752053Ab3FIStq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:49:46 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:37534 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750887Ab3FIStq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:49:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 20806 invoked by uid 102); 9 Jun 2013 18:50:36 -0000 Received: from c-71-62-74-146.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.62.74.146) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:50:36 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:49:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:14:36AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > Sorry, I don't have patches. It is a hard problem for which I do not > > have the solution, which is kind of my point. > > So, what is the problem? We are moving towards what we think is the > way forward. Nobody said that it is the theoretical best, but it's > _much_ better than doing nothing, no? I thought I already said: there is a lot of global state that is assumed to be wiped between various functions and git commands. For example, you cannot just call cmd_log twice in the same process and get the right answers. I haven't seen a proposal for dealing with that. > Then whom are we to ask about this feasibility? All the core > contributors (including Junio) are in the CC. Nobody has said > anything. So, are you proposing that we sit and ponder over our > theoretically-indeterminate-feasibility problem? There is no magic > bullet, Jeff. We write code, and we fix bugs as and when they crop > up; there's really not much else anyone can do. Help by writing code, > or reviewing someone else's code. I mentioned a bug above. How are you going to fix it? Where is your patch to review? -Peff