On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:42:03 +0100 Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:51:47 +0200 =?utf-8?b?SsOpcsOpbXkgTGFs?= > <kapo...@melix.org> wrote: > > Package: gitg > > Followup-For: Bug #766461 > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > just a few words to say that i'm having an incredibly good > > user experience with gitg 3.22. > > It's fast, it's packed with wonderful features (uncomparably > > better than old 0.2.7 version) and upstream seems to be > > going in a very pragmatic direction. > > If you need any help maintaining libgit2-glib/gitg, please > > do not hesitate to ask. > > > > I can only second this. I find the new interface much more pleasant. > > Dmitry, it would be great if you can upload this version to unstable. > > What can we do to move this forward? > I don't think it makes sense to block new upstream releases forever > because of personal disagreements on what upstream is doing. > At some point, Dmitry, you have to fork gitg and maybe ship it as > gitg-legacy. > > It would be a shame if we shipped stretch with a horribly outdated > version of gitg.
I agree with Michael and Jeremy. gitg 0.2.x was uploaded more than 3 years ago and 3.x has been cooking in experimental for more than 2. Upstream has done tremendous efforts to make the software usable again and with 3.22, I cannot see any reason to keep 0.2.x supported for yet another 2 years, really. Unless, we still want to feed the trolls who associate Debian with significantly outdated software. Thanks for considering our request, Ghis
