From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:01:19 -0700 Message-ID: <7vprtk3jwg.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vlk4snpj3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwso85qkf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwso5r87q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v8x0992hy.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <5d46db230803231406x132e748bm306494ec5f8dfd2b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Govind Salinas" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 24 04:02:20 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jdcwy-0008Qr-U4 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:02:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750743AbYCXDBg (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:01:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750820AbYCXDBg (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:01:36 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:41643 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbYCXDBf (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:01:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F182242; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9022241; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:01:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <5d46db230803231406x132e748bm306494ec5f8dfd2b@mail.gmail.com> (Govind Salinas's message of "Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:06:25 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Govind Salinas" writes: > I also sent out the following patch that could be put in instead of... I had an impression that that change would break the existing output that somebody other than you are depending on. I personally think it is plausible that everybody wants the new behaviour your patch propose, but that kind of change is not appropriate for 1.5.5 cycle (might be Ok for 1.6.0 after we see agreements on the list), and definitely not something we would want to apply after -rc0.