problem with insider build for windows and git

problem with insider build for windows and git

[Michael Gooch]

when running commands like pull and clone I get the following message:

Cygwin WARNING:
   Couldn't compute FAST_CWD pointer.  This typically occurs if you're using
   an older Cygwin version on a newer Windows.  Please update to the latest
   available Cygwin version from https://cygwin.com/.  If the problem 
persists,
   please see https://cygwin.com/problems.html

Windows build is version 1607, OS BUILD 15002.1001

I assume they broke something that cygwin was depending on.

Re: problem with insider build for windows and git

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Michael,

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Michael Gooch wrote:

> when running commands like pull and clone I get the following message:
> 
> Cygwin WARNING:
>   Couldn't compute FAST_CWD pointer.  This typically occurs if you're using
>   an older Cygwin version on a newer Windows.  Please update to the latest
>   available Cygwin version from https://cygwin.com/.  If the problem 
> persists,
>   please see https://cygwin.com/problems.html
> 
> Windows build is version 1607, OS BUILD 15002.1001
> 
> I assume they broke something that cygwin was depending on.

This is not only a known problem, we already have a fix for it, too.

Please note that the recommended way [*1*] to report bugs in Git for
Windows would have led you to this ticket:

	https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/1029

Please also note that this is only a warning, not an error. Even so, the
problem has been reported independently several times...

There have been enough real fixes have been accumulated in Git for
Windows' `master` branch, and the next official Git version is far enough
in the future [*2*] that it was time for a Git for Windows version,
including the fix for the FAST_CWD warning.

Ciao,
Johannes

Footnote *1*: https://git-for-windows.github.io/#contribute

Footnote *2*: http://tinyurl.com/gitCal suggests that Git v2.12.0 will be
released early February soon after Git Merge (and Git for Windows v2.12.0
will follow soon thereafter), and with no patches applied to the `maint`
branch since v2.11.0, I do actually not expect any v2.11.1 to happen
before v2.12.0 comes out.

Re: problem with insider build for windows and git

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Footnote *2*: http://tinyurl.com/gitCal suggests that Git v2.12.0 will
> be released early February soon after Git Merge (and Git for Windows
> v2.12.0 will follow soon thereafter), and with no patches applied to the
> `maint` branch since v2.11.0, I do actually not expect any v2.11.1 to
> happen before v2.12.0 comes out.

And just to prove me wrong, today I got the first update to `maint` in six
weeks, with a message "Almost ready for 2.11.1" at its tip, featuring a
whopping 141 commits (95 of which are not merge commits).

So it seems that v2.11.1 may happen soon, after all.

Sorry for my misjudgement,
Johannes

Re: problem with insider build for windows and git

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> And just to prove me wrong, today I got the first update to `maint` in six
> weeks, with a message "Almost ready for 2.11.1" at its tip, featuring a
> whopping 141 commits (95 of which are not merge commits).
>
> So it seems that v2.11.1 may happen soon, after all.

Sorry for being late.  I had a short travel around the year boundary,
got sick and have been slow.

Aside from the "ouch, one topic has merged earlier iteration, that
was merged to 'master', also now merged to 'maint', and we need to
follow up on both" you sent out earlier, are there any other topic
that are already in 'master' that should go to 2.11.x track?

Thanks.

Re: problem with insider build for windows and git

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Aside from the "ouch, one topic has merged earlier iteration, that
> was merged to 'master', also now merged to 'maint', and we need to
> follow up on both" you sent out earlier,

I know of one more "ouch" moment where my latest iterations did not get
picked up: my latest version of the "Avoid a segmentation fault with
renaming merges" patch did not output an error message in case of !nce
because the code flow will result in more appropriate error messages later
anyway. I did not provide a follow-up patch for that because the current
version in `maint` is not wrong per se.

> are there any other topic that are already in 'master' that should go to
> 2.11.x track?

Personally, I would have merged 'nd/config-misc-fixes' into `maint`, I
guess, and 'jc/abbrev-autoscale-config', and probably also 'jc/latin-1'.
The 'rj/git-version-gen-do-not-force-abbrev' topic would be another
candidate for inclusion. The 'ah/grammos' strikes me as obvious `maint`
material, as well as 'ew/svn-fixes'. I have no opinion on the p4 topics
(five, by my counting), as I have no experience with (or for that matter,
need for) Perforce, but Lars might have a strong opinion on those.

Having said that, these are the topics that *I* would merge into `maint`
if I maintained Git. I don't, so this is just my opinion, man [*1*].

Ciao,
Johannes

Footnote *1*: While you read that last part of the sentence, imagine me in
slippers and a bathrobe, with a White Russian in my left hand for which I
used milk instead of cream (for the White Russian, that is, not for my
left hand).

Re: problem with insider build for windows and git

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> are there any other topic that are already in 'master' that should go to
>> 2.11.x track?
>
> Personally, I would have merged 'nd/config-misc-fixes' into `maint`, I
> guess, and 'jc/abbrev-autoscale-config', and probably also 'jc/latin-1'.

The "almost ready" pushout were merging the ones that have been in
'master' for weeks (including that mingw-isatty topic).  These three
are still on radar, but they were too young and that was the only
reason why they were not included in the batch.

> The 'rj/git-version-gen-do-not-force-abbrev' topic would be another
> candidate for inclusion. The 'ah/grammos' strikes me as obvious `maint`
> material, as well as 'ew/svn-fixes'. 

I am holding back rj/git-version-gen-do-not-force-abbrev from 2.11.x
before 2.12 is released because I am a bit reluctant to tweak the
release infractructure in 'maint', before the same tweak hits
'master' and produces a release.

The second one will involve translators and that is why it is not
marked for back-merging in the draft release notes.

I agree that the svn thing should have been merged to 'maint' in
that batch, but I missed it.

> Having said that, these are the topics that *I* would merge into `maint`
> if I maintained Git. I don't, so this is just my opinion, man [*1*].

Yes, your opinion was exactly what was requested, and you gave one
;-)