Renato Botelho <ga...@freebsd.org> writes: >> Not really. Anything brand-new that comes this late in the cycle >> will not be in 2.6, so the earliest release this NO_PERL change can >> appear in is one after the upcoming release. > > Even if it’s a bug that produce a broken installation?
Absolutely. The way we do things around here is to do new features early in the cycle before -rc0, fixes to pre-existing bugs before -rc1 and after that we go to regression fixes only until the final. And use of Perl in submodule or request-pull is anything new in 2.6, I think. This is a fix to pre-existing issue, and I haven't tagged -rc1 yet, but speaking from experience, anything that I can poke a hole after staring at it for only 20 seconds (see my other message about this patch defining two different ways to build the same thing) has a high chance of having other issues that will hurt other people in a way other than the trivial "staring at it for 20-second" issue, which would introduce a real regression. Between an unknown regression and a known longstanding bug, we tend to take the latter. > Nevermind, I’ll add the patch into FreeBSD ports so FreeBSD users can > have a sane package installed. Sure. That would help in the long term, as it will result in a well-cooked fix in 2.7; by that time hopefully the 'submodule' bit would not be necessary, but request-pull may still be using Perl. -- 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
