From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662A31F4C0 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 23:38:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389755AbfJVXiC (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:38:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64068 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731847AbfJVXiC (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:38:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D24834D78; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:38:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=pApbpEXi3VP09+hWXEpakjbxIAM=; b=g7HmPN NXfr4rr3pMQYoD03ZggHaXkZoi/Th4PrJTNksoIXuANj11f3bDWXorkoiwRaFkL6 LEEPeO4q8n2uBjba57LsgXsBsaQSNsGJ0WWzr11LHyV3MZw2/b8n0GgNsbsqC9Gv W4LeqDYyubcv5TMxL7bxmaNoc6ezzaYNRn5c4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=T6b3EDROSXnbK/S8GJplwnOu0l+J8fZ+ eKLjBk851pijYhOpuwdi/DT8YXy3KgDfhqp+rrUvxNMoc3sIAlDVOeWB5lUUvJi4 rEr/LIPg8cc9NoB9lltQuvnXB7WWhoS7rvrrKEd4vil9J70kR6C2EvZn05nifylJ SAIDrriSQps= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3550334D77; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:38:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 648C434D76; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 19:38:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ci(osx): use new location of the `perforce` cask References: <372ab24acffbc956407cd93ed34135f83156e10d.1571316454.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20191018105143.GY29845@szeder.dev> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:37:58 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:28:03 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FBD7F7E8-F524-11E9-BC5C-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> This is already in 'next' X-<; reverting a merge is cheap but I >> prefer to do so when we already have a replacement. > > I force-pushed (see https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/400), and > once Stolee approves, he will submit v3. This will only change the > commit message, though, as I disagree that hard-coding the URL would be > an improvement: the nice thing about a package management system is that > the user does not need to know the details (or need to know if the > details change, like, ever). If this were meant for the upcoming release, I would rather see us copy a butt-ugly-but-known-working procedure if we have one this close to -rc1. If the hard-coded URL ever changes, the procedure we would be copying from would be broken anyway. But I agree 100% that we should take a conceptually cleaner approach for the longer term. Let's replace the original one with this and cook in 'next'---it would be ideal if the ugly-but-know-working one be updated to match in the meantime, but if it is bypassing package management for a reason (the upstream just publishes the URL to download from without packaging it properly, for example?), that would not be possible, and it is OK if that is the case. Thanks.