Hi Paolo,
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> Il 10 ago 2017 11:39 AM, "Johannes Schindelin"
> ha scritto:
>
>
>
> Footnote *1*: It is no secret that I find our patch submission less than
> inviting. Granted, *I* use it. *I* did not have problems entering the
> mailing list. But th
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 07:09:02PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> The first is "should we eventually drop support for antiquated versions
> of dependencies?". And the argument in favor is the one I was making
> here: besides lowering maintenance cost, it is more honest to our users
> about what to expe
On 11/08/17 01:23, Jeff King wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:17:51AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
OK, thanks for double-checking. I'm still puzzled why your build
succeeds and mine does not.
I know what's going on now and it's so simple.
Red Hats version of curl 7.15.5 includes a number
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:17:51AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
> > OK, thanks for double-checking. I'm still puzzled why your build
> > succeeds and mine does not.
>
> I know what's going on now and it's so simple.
> Red Hats version of curl 7.15.5 includes a number of patches including one
On 11/08/17 00:54, Jeff King wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:23:42AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
Er, sorry if I'm being dense, but how? Are you suggesting that by
removing the callsite of get_curl_allowed_protocols(), the compiler
might elide the now-dead code completely? I could certai
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:17:06PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36:41AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> >> Hopefully I had better luck expressing my concerns this time?
> >
> > I understand your argument much better now. I'm still not
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:23:42AM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
> > > I just built a pristine 2.14.0 on CentOS 5 with curl 7.15.5. No problems
> > > at
> > > all neither with building nor with running the testsuite.
> >
> > As you can see, this does not compile for me. What's going on?
> >
On 10/08/17 23:32, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:33:18PM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
You've totally ignored the argument I made back then[1], and which I
reiterated in this thread. So I'll say it one more time: the more
compelling reason is not the #ifdefs, but the fact that
Jeff King writes:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36:41AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> Hopefully I had better luck expressing my concerns this time?
>
> I understand your argument much better now. I'm still not sure I agree.
>
> -Peff
I do not think "there are a dozen #ifdefs and I don't
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36:41AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hopefully I had better luck expressing my concerns this time?
I understand your argument much better now. I'm still not sure I agree.
-Peff
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:33:18PM +0200, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
> > You've totally ignored the argument I made back then[1], and which I
> > reiterated in this thread. So I'll say it one more time: the more
> > compelling reason is not the #ifdefs, but the fact that the older
> > versions are
On 09/08/17 23:47, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
I mean, if we even go out of our way to support the completely outdated
and obsolete .git/branches/ for what is likely a single user, it may not
be the worst to keep those couple of #ifdef gu
[I am resending this since the original does not seem to have made it to
the list, at least I cannot find it in any archives]
On 09/08/17 23:47, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
I mean, if we even go out of our way to support the completely
Hi Peff,
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > This is a resurrection of the thread from April:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqs...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
> >
> > As befo
On Wed, Aug 09 2017, Johannes Schindelin jotted:
> Hi Peff,
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> This is a resurrection of the thread from April:
>>
>>
>> https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqs...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
>
> As before, I would like to point out that
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > This is a resurrection of the thread from April:
> >
> >
> > https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqs...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
>
> As before, I would like to point out that people running with older cUR
Hi Peff,
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Jeff King wrote:
> This is a resurrection of the thread from April:
>
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqs...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
As before, I would like to point out that people running with older cURL
are most likely not at liberty t
This is a resurrection of the thread from April:
https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqs...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
The general idea is that we should drop support for very old curl
versions, which already fail to compile. I'm sympathetic to the case
where people actually have
18 matches
Mail list logo
