On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:37:09PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On 20/10/14 02:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I have to wonder why 10f343ea (archive: honor tar.umask even for pax > > headers, 2014-08-03) is a problem but an earlier change v1.8.1.1~8^2 > > (archive-tar: split long paths more carefully, 2013-01-05), which > > also should have broken bit-for-bit compatibility, went unnoticed, > > though. What I am getting at is that correcting past mistakes in > > the output should not be forbidden unconditionally with a complaint > > like this. > > I think Greg actually ran into that one, and uses a separate 1.7 git > tree for this reason.
I used to have to do this for the 3.0-stable kernel as one of the files in it ran into the "very long path" problem. I just ran the latest version of git with that one commit reverted and all was fine. After 3.0 was done, I just dropped that patch from my local version and have been running with the latest git version of git with no problems. > I can update our servers to git 2.1 (which most of them already have), > which should help with previous incompatibilities -- but not the future > ones obviously. :) I thought you already did this. Or was that only the public facing git servers? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
