Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sequencer: factor code out of revert builtin

From: Miles Bader <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:18:33 +0900

Ramkumar Ramachandra <[email-masked]> writes:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>> [...]
>> With that observation, it would probably make more sense if "foo.c"
>> included the headers in the following order:
>>
>>  - Anything the declarations in "foo.h" depends on;
>>  - "foo.h" itself; and finally
>>  - Other headers that "foo.c" implementation needs.
>>
>> That way, people who want to use "foo.h" can guess what needs to be
>> included before using "foo.h" a lot more easily.
>
> That's a good rule-of-thumb.  Thanks :)

Does git not use the common practice of self-contained headers?

-miles

-- 
Fast, small, soon; pick any 2.