On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> david@lang.hm writes:
> 
> >> Post-checkout trigger is something I can say I can live with
> >> without looking at the actual patch, but that does not mean it
> >> would be a better approach at all.
> >
> > we agree on this much at least :-)
> >
> >> I would not be able to answer the first question right now; that
> >> needs a patch to prove that it can be done with a well contained
> >> set of changes that results in a maintainable code.
> >
> > you cannot answer the question in the affirmitive, but you could say
> > that any changes in that area would be completely unacceptable to you
> > (and for a while it sounded like you were saying exactly that). in
> > which case any effort put into preparing patches would be a waste of
> > time
> 
> I tend to disagree.  It's far from a waste of time.  While, as I
> said, I am skeptical that such a patch would be small impact, if
> it helps people's needs, somebody will pick it up and carry
> forward, even if that somebody is not me.  It can then mature
> out of tree and later could be merged.  We simply do not know
> unless somebody tries.  And I am quite happy that you seem to be
> motivated enough to see how it goes.

There's certainly the possibility that a changeset could consist of some 
patches that make the index/filesystem handling more clear, some patches 
that make the tree/index handling more clear, and some patches that allow 
a hook to replace one of these entirely. Things can be a lot more 
acceptable if the intrusive changes are improvements for the 
maintainability of the normal case, and the special case code is no longer 
intrusive at all.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html