On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> But the thing is, that majority is what writes the majority of the
>> code and does the majority of the reviews, so as maintainer I *do*
>> have to give their opinion a lot of we
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> The proposed patch was rejected on the basis that it was organized
>>> the code in a wrong way. And your patch shows how it should be
>>> done.
>
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> The proposed patch was rejected on the basis that it was organized
>> the code in a wrong way. And your patch shows how it should be
>> done.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> The fact that nobody outside of 'git' wil
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> ... Alas, this
>> simple solution reject on the basis that we shouldn't organize the
>> code, because the code is not meant to be organized.
>
> The proposed patch was rejected on the basis that it was organized
> the code in a wrong way.
Johan Herland writes:
>> There is only one right solution. If a useful function is buried in
>> builtin/*.o as a historical accident (i.e. it started its life as a
>> helper for that particular command, and nobody else used it from
>> outside so far) and that makes it impossible to use the funct
> There is only one right solution. If a useful function is buried in
> builtin/*.o as a historical accident (i.e. it started its life as a
> helper for that particular command, and nobody else used it from
> outside so far) and that makes it impossible to use the function
> from outside builtin/*
6 matches
Mail list logo
