Re: What's not in 'master' but should be

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Lars Hjemli" <hjemli@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 18, 2008 12:09 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> "Lars Hjemli" <hjemli@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hmm, isn't a nonfunctional libgit considered breakage? Without
>> > something like this patch it is no longer possible to use
>> > write_tar_archive()/write_zip_archive() in libgit.a.
>>
>> Sorry, but libgit.a is not part of what we deliver.  We do not
>> support linking random stuff against libgit.a.  We never did.
>> It is not a "library".
>
> I kind of expected this reply, and I know libgit isn't supposed to be
> a stable API aginst git internals, but it still feels like a
> regression: cgit has been linking against libgit for over a year now
> (initial snapshot support added feb 8, 2007), and git-1.5.4 looks like
> the first git release which cgit cannot use.

If you expected it, you should have added the above four and
half lines in the initial message.  cgit is something even I
have heard of, and breakage of it because of what we have is
worth taking into consideration.  It would have been nicer if
this came before -rc0.

>> The code movement you did _should_ not hurt so it may be a fine
>> material for post 1.5.4, but I haven't carefully compared what
>> other change might have accidentally snuck in that patch, and I
>> would rather not have to during the rc cycle.
>
> Ok, I can't argue with that.

Instead of wasting more time in the exchange in this thread, I
spent a several uninterrupted minutes' attention to read over
your patch to make sure there is no accidental slippage (with
help from Dscho as well).  I'll make an exception and will
apply.

Thanks for the patch.