2013/12/31 Roman Kagan <rka...@mail.ru>:
> 2013/12/30 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>:
>> Roman Kagan <rka...@mail.ru> writes:
>>> I'd like to note that it's IMO worth including in the 'maint' branch
>>> as it's a crasher.  Especially so since the real fix has been merged
>>> in the subversion upstream and nominated for 1.8 branch, so the
>>> workaround may soon lose its relevance.
>> I do not quite get this part, though.
>> If they refused to fix it for real, it would make it likely that
>> this workaround will stay relevant for a long time, in which case it
>> would be worth cherry-picking to an older maintenance track.  But if
>> this workaround is expected to lose its relevance shortly, I see it
>> as one less reason to cherry-pick it to an older maintenance track.
>> Confused...
> I thought it was exactly the other way around.  By the time the next
> feature release reaches users, chances are they'd already have
> subversion with the fix.  OTOH the workaround would benefit those who
> get their maintenance release of git (e.g. through their Linux distro
> update) before they get their maintenance release of subversion.

So this actually happened: is out, and some distributions are
shipping it (Arch, Debian), but the workaround didn't make it there.

Could you please consider including it in 'maint', so that
brings them a working combination of git and subversion?

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