From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramsay Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mingw: rename WIN32 cpp macro to GIT_NATIVE_WINDOWS Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:22:56 +0100 Message-ID: <517F00D0.5010103@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> References: <517C29BE.6050002@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> <20130429051059.GC8031@elie.Belkin> <7v38u9opnk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Nieder , GIT Mailing-list To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 30 01:33:27 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UWxZW-0000M4-Ul for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:33:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932653Ab3D2XdT (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:33:19 -0400 Received: from mdfmta009.mxout.tbr.inty.net ([91.221.168.50]:51192 "EHLO smtp.demon.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932572Ab3D2XdO (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:33:14 -0400 Received: from mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08A0384083; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:33:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F92384081; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:33:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from [193.237.126.196] (unknown [193.237.126.196]) by mdfmta009.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:33:12 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <7v38u9opnk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-MDF-HostID: 4 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: >> Ramsay Jones wrote: [snip] > While I really like seeing an unfinished topic completed by tying > its loose ends like this patch does, it feels a bit too late for the > cycle, especially given that we _know_ the changes still need to be > tested on a platform that the series is expected to affect. Yes, I suspect it is low risk, but there is no need to include it in this cycle. ATB, Ramsay Jones