Hi kusma,

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

> While it's certainly a good point, I think this is *our* fault for not
> upstreaming our changes, and the responsibility of cleaning up merges
> should lie on our shoulders. We've diverged a lot. Sure, Dscho does a
> great job making the divergence less painful, but IMO we should try to
> reduce the delta as well.

Just for historical context: we *did* try to get our changes upstream. In
fact, that was in large part everything Steffen Prohaska did while he was
maintaining Git for Windows. The going has been tough, though, to the
point that we were losing contributors who were not *quite* willing to put
up with such a detailed vetting process as the Git mailing list requires.

I have to admit that it is really, really hard even for someone like me,
who is used to the ways of the Git mailing list, because just a simple
thing like this curl-config issue already eats up several days of my Git
time budget.

So while I am sympathetic to the point of view that the Git for Windows
project failed to upstream its changes, I am *equally* sympathetic to the
point of view that it is an undue burden to have to go through the process
of getting patches included by upstream Git. I, for one, simply ain't got
the time, man.

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