Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3
Junio C Hamano wrote: > People have _already_ seen and lived with these issues in released > versions. Changing it may or may not be getting it back to the > state to that of an even older release, but at that point the > differences do not matter. It is a "fix", too late for the kind of > regression fixes we focus during _this_ -rc period, which is about > regressions between v1.8.2 and 'master'. Makes sense. On a related note, I really wonder why people run anything < master git; it's so easy to compile and use from ~. The idea isn't insane at all: most people run a -p ruby from ~ using things like rbenv (yes, it compiles from source). (ofcourse servers have to run a release) -- 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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > So, is it > because that version was too long ago that we don't consider it a > regression (do we backport fixes)? The "regression fixes" pre-release -rc period is for is to make sure to avoid unwanted/unintended behaviour changes between releases. People have _already_ seen and lived with these issues in released versions. Changing it may or may not be getting it back to the state to that of an even older release, but at that point the differences do not matter. It is a "fix", too late for the kind of regression fixes we focus during _this_ -rc period, which is about regressions between v1.8.2 and 'master'. -- 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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Fixes to something that are broken the same way between 'master' and
> older release versions are the same as enhancements (which you can
> view as "fix to lack of feature"). They are not regression fixes
> and not for 1.8.3 at this point in the cycle, deep into -rc.
If we view them as enhancements, well and good. Let's polish them
until we're really happy with them: they're written with the "minimal,
but correct" philosophy, because the -rc3 window is too small for a
review.
Just to share opinion, they looked like "bugs" to me, because it's not
about "improving" the error messages; it's about correcting a defect.
The author could not have possibly intended two "error: " lines in the
first one, or an empty string in the second one. At some point in the
past, the behavior must have been different (a "feature" must have
introduced these problems: like implicit HEAD for @{}): the
"regression" was introduced in the version after that. So, is it
because that version was too long ago that we don't consider it a
regression (do we backport fixes)?
--
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
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix invalid revision error messages for 1.8.3
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Seeing other patches on the list, I decided that I should do something > for 1.8.3 as well Fixes to something that are broken the same way between 'master' and older release versions are the same as enhancements (which you can view as "fix to lack of feature"). They are not regression fixes and not for 1.8.3 at this point in the cycle, deep into -rc. -- 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
