From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBF8C433F5 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234299AbhLNNSE (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:18:04 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:51372 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229952AbhLNNSE (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:18:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 13573 invoked by uid 109); 14 Dec 2021 13:18:03 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:18:03 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 24263 invoked by uid 111); 14 Dec 2021 13:18:03 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:18:03 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:18:02 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Elijah Newren , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee , Eric Sunshine , Bagas Sanjaya , Theodore Ts'o , Matt Rogers Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Makefile: add test-all target Message-ID: References: <211207.86ilw0matb.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 08:16:26AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > There are projects that want to use libgit.a by binding us as a > > submodule and without interacting with us very much. And they are > > on their own when we change the internals. Do you mean that you > > want to make scalar into the same status as they are? > > I kind of thought that final paragraph was the plan, at least to start > with. Oh, and just to be clear: I am really OK with either direction. I'm only claiming that I think both approaches are self-consistent and are making a tradeoff (finding bugs earlier, versus shifting burden of bug-fixing around). -Peff