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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82351F9E0 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728600AbgD1ST6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:19:58 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63734 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728392AbgD1ST6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:19:58 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E1F4C126; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:19:56 -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=bvK7c8I9rhTSTjB4ah82YrqKozU=; b=JEkNXU Y4r5GTioaUD+sIfL0h7bWyJ98zEL4bUBJNh81JbS4iXHNgnkNucIn1LC9yv6Dg5c 3Lfv45BFx1T+tEw5czp4r5EecTtKBzfhBs+rcFgJLUS7ASrjsDjj6cO9YtVlQXts Z8v1xBjpA0caYziD65zLCnVjmuRO/MODKeRaE= 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=lMYigBp5+P3ZtiptmVL6yE6xJhR4SYVk +dxG8+jBzRiVf8Fgjh4xXv8MaiIn1j+X9oHU2X6X+MIEYMsNJDhhRWsBPQfseL08 gw5MoyCnKZ685KnsK5PhMtX0U7qRVoCTkAl0c433772vmAQinl+FcUOxwtORkUMq ejcfaEXAdWE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8172C4C124; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:19:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C2B94C122; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:19:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Jeff King , Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= Subject: Re: proto v2 fixes for maint (was Re: Preparing for a Git 2.26.3 release) References: <20200428055514.GB201501@google.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 11:19:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 28 Apr 2020 10:25:09 -0700") 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: DCBEE7EE-897C-11EA-945F-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > In short, my preference is to ship 2.26.3 with the "demote v2 from > default", and hopefully try 2.27 with "v2 with negotiation fix" and > hope people won't find any other remaining glitches in 2.27. After > that, we may want to merge the negotiation fix down to 2.26.x track > but I am not comfortable merging it in a release on the maintenance > track with the timeframe we seem to be talking about (i.e. a few > weeks, presumably). The last part needs clarification. What I am hesitant is to merge only the "negotiation fix" in 2.26.3 while keeping v2 the default. As long as v2 is not the default with the "demote" patch, I am OK to have the "negotiation fix" in there, too.