Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Fixes to something that are broken the same way between 'master' and
> older release versions are the same as enhancements (which you can
> view as "fix to lack of feature").  They are not regression fixes
> and not for 1.8.3 at this point in the cycle, deep into -rc.

If we view them as enhancements, well and good.  Let's polish them
until we're really happy with them: they're written with the "minimal,
but correct" philosophy, because the -rc3 window is too small for a

Just to share opinion, they looked like "bugs" to me, because it's not
about "improving" the error messages; it's about correcting a defect.
The author could not have possibly intended two "error: " lines in the
first one, or an empty string in the second one.  At some point in the
past, the behavior must have been different (a "feature" must have
introduced these problems: like implicit HEAD for @{<N>}): the
"regression" was introduced in the version after that.  So, is it
because that version was too long ago that we don't consider it a
regression (do we backport fixes)?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to