From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David A. Wheeler" Subject: Re: [2/4] Sorting commits by date Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:36:35 -0400 Message-ID: <42646EB3.8070701@dwheeler.com> References: <20050419021338.GX5554@pasky.ji.cz> Reply-To: dwheeler@dwheeler.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Barkalow , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 19 04:30:59 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DNiVg-0005kZ-HB for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:30:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261202AbVDSCel (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:34:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261205AbVDSCel (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:34:41 -0400 Received: from cujo.runbox.com ([193.71.199.138]:15274 "EHLO cujo.runbox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261202AbVDSCej (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:34:39 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.11] (helo=fifi.runbox.com) by greyhound.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DNiZQ-0000gn-Tt; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:34:36 +0200 Received: from [70.17.101.238] (helo=[192.168.2.73]) by fifi.runbox.com with asmtp (uid:258406) (Exim 4.34) id 1DNiZQ-0008MU-IK; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:34:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.2 (X11/20050324) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20050419021338.GX5554@pasky.ji.cz> X-Sender: 258406@vger.kernel.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Petr Baudis wrote: > [Re: Daniel Barkalow 's patch] > Note that you are breaking gcc-2.95 compatibility when using declarator > in the middle of a block. Not that it might be a necessarily bad thing > ;-) (although I still use gcc-2.95 a lot), just to ring a bell so that > it doesn't slip through unnoticed and we can decide on a policy > regarding this. I, at least, would REALLY like to see _highly_ portable C code; I'm looking at git as a potential long-term useful SCM tool for LOTS of projects, and if you're going to write C, it'd be nice to just write it portably to start with. There's certainly no crisis in using separate declarators. In fact, in the LONG term I'd like to see the shell code replaced with code that easily runs "everywhere" (Windows, etc.), again, for portability's sake. I think that would be unwise to do that right now; the shell is an excellent prototyping tool. But once things have settled down & there's been some experience with the tools, the pieces could be slowly recoded. (Yes, I know of & use Cygwin. And I prefer Python over Perl, but I'm really uninterested in language wars.) --- David A. Wheeler