From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F8320193 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:16:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965067AbcJXUQp (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:16:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65345 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752848AbcJXUQo (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:16:44 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B92A45947; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:16:43 -0400 (EDT) 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=HdE9vd8d+S4G/LsFOcbOu7fTqiE=; b=YkKweI HohRHkNPC4xkCzYZn0L3DufPRF04dPu7oY9LQEqPbqc9NHbJ8475n+FV1ZPfqAln Fo+0J+9UE4PFd4qLmjn/ZQ/slJ2pslnNRHO4rQfXc0W60ts4+rnMrA2naG/cPfAT nFDnbmVAwV7DoLQc61CQAFJ4yxJ/jaYbf9k28= 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=jLZAPUa1MqQmhyZWYWljGBVZJzY/kgRc pp3Agwv5PzLrljewuecBtGs6Juo8IDfKd2AuvC7TXyoCiJlKIEHR63eZmM/3vDDi vs12bRjA9e2FMd5mF1+31HnrGTilqnPPiGHIVrhcnpTpFfV6q5fbiwp3d70DDLOK HSv82m6Ryzc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B6F45946; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:16:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E338345945; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:16:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Johannes Schindelin , "git\@vger.kernel.org" , Jeff King , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Johannes Sixt , Ramsay Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] Prepare the sequencer for the upcoming rebase -i patches References: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:16:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:36:50 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C7A1DC70-9A26-11E6-93AE-987C12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: >> Speaking of what to and not to include in the upcoming release, we >> do want to include Stefan's off-by-one fix to the submodule-helper, >> but that is blocked on Windows end due to the test. > > I'd be happy either way, i.e. we could revert that fix and make a release? > AFAICT, Windows only has broken tests, not broken functionality with that > submodule bug fix. If you are referring the "trailing /. should not make difference when resolving ../relative/path" change with "rever that fix", I think that may be a reasonable way to proceed. Even though that change is a bugfix (at least from the point of view by me and j6t in the recent discussion), it is a behaviour change that we would want to see feedback from existing submodule users and deserves a longer gestation period. And that part is not yet in 'next' yet ;-) > If we want a longer gestation period, we'd ideally merge it to master > just after a release, such that we "cook" it in master without having > it in any release (we had a similar discussion for the diff heuristics IIRC). Yes. It would mean that we would need a separate patch that adds the !MINGW prerequisite to some tests to what is on 'next', as the early patches on sb/submodule-ignore-trailing-slash~ that fixes off-by-one is the right thing to do either way. It of course needs help from Windows folks to validate the results.