Johannes Schindelin <> writes:

> In case it is not crystal-clear, let me clarify one very important point.
> It seems that some people mistake the work I do for something I do on a
> whim. This is not so.
> The patch series that triggered this entire unfortunate discussion
> introduced the --smudge option, which I have subsequently renamed to
> --filters and submitted as a patch series to the Git project.

As the "--filters" is meant as a new feature, it will not land on
the maintenance track.  It is very likely that it won't be in 2.10,
so it won't appear in 2.10.x maintenance track, either.

I do not agree with Duy that the "port to Windows" needs a separate
distinct name, though.  Having said that, aside from the issue of
handling of bugreports has been already meantioned, which mostly
costs for Git developers, whatever new feature you unleash ahead of
upstream to your Windows port has cost to your end-users.  Its
implementation or its external interface may have to change when you
upstream the new feature that has already been in the field, and
your end-users would have to adjust their scripts and/or muscle

One way to avoid that risk may be to release the new feature as
"experimental-and-subject-to-change", so that interested users on
Windows can actually try it out to see if the feature itself
(whatever its interface to them is) makes sense, and you can gauge
the value of upstreaming it, while cautioning these early adopters
that it has not fully been through the usual review process and may
have to change while becoming part of the official release.  This is
no different from various "experimental features" we unleash to the
wild, either via 'master' or keeping it in 'next' (we tend to do
more of the latter, marking "see if anybody screams").

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to