Re: libgit2 status

Ramkumar Ramachandra [off-list ref] writes:

Thiago Farina wrote:

quoted

[...]
With some structure like:

include/git.h
src/git.c

...

whatever.
[...]

Junio- is it reasonable to expect the directory-restructuring by 2.0?

I actually hate "include/git.h vs src/git.c"; you have distinction
between .c and .h already.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

I actually hate "include/git.h vs src/git.c"; you have distinction
between .c and .h already.

Which distinction are you talking about? This is not an issue of
header file versus source file, but a public header file to be
included by external projects versus internal header files that are
intended to be included only by git itself and that will probably live
under src/ directory.

On 10/19/2012 10:13 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Ramkumar Ramachandra [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Thiago Farina wrote:

quoted

[...]
With some structure like:

include/git.h
src/git.c

...

whatever.
[...]

Junio- is it reasonable to expect the directory-restructuring by 2.0?

I actually hate "include/git.h vs src/git.c"; you have distinction
between .c and .h already.

Agreed. The way libgit2 does it is to have "src/tag.[ch]", which are
for internal use, and then "src/include/tag.h" which is the published
version that others can use to write code against the tag library.
src/tag.h always includes src/include/tag.h, so no code needs to be
duplicated, but internal parts of the library can still use lower-
level stuff if it wants to. It's a good compromise when creating a
library from application code and there were no opaque types from
the start.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.