Re: [BUG] Performance regression due to #33d4221: write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Stefan Saasen <ssaasen@atlassian.com> writes:
>
>> I've noticed Peff's patches on pu which suggest they will be available
>> in git 2.5?
>
> Being on 'pu' (or 'next' for that matter) is not a suggestion for a
> change to appear in any future version at all, even though it often
> means that it would soon be merged to 'master' and will be in the
> upcoming release to be on 'next' in early part of a development
> cycle.  Some larger topics would stay on 'next' for a few cycles.
>
>> Do you Junio, have plans to merge them to maint (2.3.x) and/or next (2.4)?
>
> The topic will hopefully be merged to 'master' after 2.4 final is
> released end of this month, down to 'maint' early May and will ship
> with 2.4.1, unless there is unforeseen issues discovered in the
> change while people try it out while it is in 'next' (which will
> happen today, hopefully).

... and then if I do not forget and if the topic is really important
for real-world users, I am OK to merge it down to 2.3 and even 2.2
maintenance tracks later.  But that will happen only after the topic
hits 'maint', which will happen only after the topic hits 'master'.

What you _can_ help is the "if I do not forget" part ;-)  Also see a
similar discussion we had recently

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/264365

The key sentence from my part in the thread is 

> When I say "the tip of 'master' is meant to be more stable than
> any tagged versions", I do mean it.

and the reasoning behind it that is given in the paragraph before
that, though.

Perhaps companies like Atlassian that rely on the stability of the
open source Git can spare some resources and join forces with like
minded folks on LTS of older maintenance tracks, if they are truly
interested in.