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-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 1FECC1F4B4 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732253AbhALCCq (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:02:46 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:55975 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726846AbhALCCp (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:02:45 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87808F8A7C; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:02:03 -0500 (EST) (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=bpHL6pvYXc3rPDjIChUhBJqqwpE=; b=D2XyIn IENhm/DH5BU6k6IEKFtYGfiQwXOy61G/GQ3uCgTKboHmMuPUPAA6RXwfcH2TsOj1 Iy6AMPi3DzVXkmBVDK2PJrbO5YoJfy4u2W+HYcio0YWQ/nLKaeM6lxsSvEvmr3Ka 278RKgyhOIhIUTfPbzFPQYYgNkIL3iMr4lzqo= 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=pTtoszyBKAbSx9r5VRGYOTQogxk26b9p VIx299wtHlB2g4XujxHda7ZHRc19/NIsS093YAMXXZnVIGJR3kfdpEVw0ytBYkmf umkvHA6VIpQnnMpBdNsZ35agqwC2hOE3GO4fGfdreCtl6yEM4Al5CJJw/NE0okR/ GlBS++jDRAY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808ADF8A7B; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:02:03 -0500 (EST) (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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDD73F8A78; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:02:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Nipunn Koorapati Cc: Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget , Git List , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] negative-refspec: fix segfault on : refspec References: Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 18:01:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Nipunn Koorapati's message of "Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:22:51 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 28959E06-547A-11EB-9FBF-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Nipunn Koorapati writes: >> Eventually by backporting, but a fix typically goes to the current >> development track first so it would happen after 2.30 is finished, I >> would think. > > I wanted to bump this idea - now that it appears that 2.30 is complete > and the new maint branch. Given that this patch makes matching-refspec > unusable in 2.29, would it make sense to backport a fix to the 2.29 > release? Yes, it does make sense. If we were to spend engineering effort to cut a 2.29.1, however, we'd better make sure not just this fix but all the other fixes relevant to the 2.29 track that are already well tested are included in it. We just issued 2.30 and not many people are using it to exercise a relatively new negative pathspec feature yet, so it probably is a good idea to spend a weeks or two to enumerate what other things we want to be in the 2.29 maintenance track. I personally do not have time for doing that myself right now, but luckily it is something contributors like you can step in to help ;-) Thanks.