Op 9-6-2013 17:40, Felipe Contreras schreef:

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM, John Keeping [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:26:32PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

quoted

Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

The plan is simple; make libgit.a a proper library, starting by
clarifying what goes into libgit.a, and what doesn't. If there's any
hopes of ever having a public library, it's clear what code doesn't
belong in libgit.a; code that is meant for builtins, that code belongs
in builtins/lib.a, or similar.

Give this a try:

--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c

libgit.a(sequencer.o): In function `copy_notes':
/home/felipec/dev/git/sequencer.c:110: undefined reference to
`init_copy_notes_for_rewrite'
/home/felipec/dev/git/sequencer.c:114: undefined reference to
`finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite'

This is a good example: yes, I'm convinced that the code does need to
be reorganized.  Please resend your {sequencer.c ->
builtin/sequencer.c} patch with this example as the rationale, and
let's work towards improving libgit.a.

Why should sequencer.c move into builtin/ to solve this?  Why not pull
init_copy_notes_for_rewrite and finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite up into
notes.c?

Because finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite is only useful for builtin
commands, so it belongs in builtin/. If there's any meaning to the
./*.o vs. builtin/*.o divide, it's for that. Otherwise we should just
squash all objects into libgit.a and be done with it.

I think that libgit.a should contain all code to be able to carry out 
all functions of git. The stuff in builtin/ is just a command-line user 
interface. Whether or not sequencer should be in builtin depends on 
whether the sequencer is only part of this command-line user interface.

I think that the sequencer code is at the moment unusable if you do not 
use the code in builtin/ so that would advocate to move it into 
builtin/. If sequencer is in libgit, and I write my own (graphical) user 
interface, I expect to be able to use it.

Vincent