On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:05:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > If this could make it to `next` some time next week, that would work
> > out great for us, because we may start considering using `next` as a
> > partial or full deployment on our production machines
> I do not think potentially incompatible stuff that are slated for
> 2.0 that have been cooking in 'next' affects the server side, so
> that may be a good and safe move.

I do not think we will literally run `next` in this case, but probably
v1.8.5 + selected topics (like this one :) ).

We do not need to base ourselves on a release, of course, and we may
start using a rolling version of master, but choose quiescent points in
the cycle (like starting with a release, and then rolling forward around
-rc time). I started trying that with this cycle, which is how I found
the --literal-pathspec regression in mid-cycle, and then found out the
fix hadn't graduated during -rc. :)

If that proves stable, then I will consider bumping up our frequency of
following `master`, and then eventually following `next` (possibly with
some lag). As a large site, we get to expose the code to a lot of new
people; but we also need to be mindful that we are exposing a lot of
people to new bugs.

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