All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2024, #04; Wed, 12)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:22:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq7cesoojc.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZmqJDVTAiBrYJGRW@tanuki> (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:52:13 +0200")

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 05:30:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> * ps/document-breaking-changes (2024-06-04) 4 commits
>>  - BreakingChanges: document that we do not plan to deprecate git-checkout
>>  - BreakingChanges: document removal of grafting
>>  - BreakingChanges: document upcoming change from "sha1" to "sha256"
>>  - docs: introduce document to announce breaking changes
>> 
>>  The structure of the document that records longer-term project
>>  decisions to deprecate/remove/update various behaviour has been
>>  outlined.
>> 
>>  Getting there.
>>  source: <cover.1717504292.git.ps@pks.im>
>
> Just to make sure I understand the status: do you expect me to do
> anything in this context? The latest version did have some final
> discussion, but from my point of view there wasn't anything actionable.

Yeah, the only thing from the discussion that may be missing is this
one on [1/4]:

 - https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZmE8myG5c99UJeCA@tanuki/

But otherwise, the typofix for [3/4] in the thread has already been
amended in when the topic was queued, so we are almost there.

I do not know if we want to explain the version number scheme there
(in your first response [*], you said you didn't want to give the
impression that the jump from 1.5.x to 1.6.0 was a huge deal,
implying a move from 2.45.x to 2.46.0 can be equally huge, but in a
later response [*], you seem to have liked the explanation to clear
potential confusion.  If that is your final position, then [1/4]
needs updating (with a reroll or just saying "yeah, squash that
update in").  If that is not, we can go with what we have, but I
haven't heard an explicit "even though I said it is a good addition,
explanation of the historical version scheme is a bit out of place,
so let's scratch it", either.  I have no strong preference myself,
but merging it to 'next' will close the door for you to say "ah, I
forgot about 1/4" later, so that was primarily what I was waiting
for.

Thanks.


[References]

 * https://lore.kernel.org/git/Zl_4IIqFmoPhx1Gc@tanuki/
 * https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZmE8myG5c99UJeCA@tanuki/

  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-13 15:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-13  0:30 What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2024, #04; Wed, 12) Junio C Hamano
2024-06-13  5:52 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-06-13 15:22   ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2024-06-14  5:52     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-06-13 13:35 ` Phillip Wood
2024-06-13 16:20   ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqq7cesoojc.fsf@gitster.g \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ps@pks.im \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.