Subject: Re: git, porcelain, darcs, and version 1.0

From: Bryan Larsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:28:26 -0400

>>Darcs and git work together to determine the minimal amount
>>that needs to go into libgit1.so.
> 
> 
> Hold on...  Nobody is speaking about *binary* compatibility, it's
> source-level compatibility that we need.  There is absolutely no
> reason to introduce the complexities of shared libraries into the
> picture.
> 

Source level compatibility and stability is the big deal.  Compared to 
that, shared libraries are an implementation detail, in my opinion. 
Sometimes those details get "interesting", but they are soluble.

I could care less whether you use libgit.a or a libgit.so.  Just as long 
as distros or anybody else can update their darcs if a major data-loss 
bug is found in git.  A recompile is acceptable.  Dealing with the 
addition of a parameter to index_fd() is not.

Bryan