From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.4-rc5 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20080129012945.GA7884@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7vsl13wmas.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vsl0r3nvc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk5lutdzq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080128183851.GB31140@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vprvls9ro.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 29 02:30:21 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JJfIp-0001H4-Tc for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:30:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754045AbYA2B3t (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753991AbYA2B3t (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:49 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2532 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753966AbYA2B3s (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 2185 invoked by uid 111); 29 Jan 2008 01:29:46 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:46 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vprvls9ro.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:25:31PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Heh, that's aonly a week ago but already you need to dig almost > 500 messages back to get there. That MacOSX thread really > killed our human performance. > > [1/3] is Ok, probably even for 1.5.4. > > [2/3] The use of "test -e" slightly ticked my compatibility > worry (instead use "test -f" or "test -d" when able) but non > prehistoric POSIX systems should grok it just fine these days. > > [3/3] as you said was questionable in its introduction of a flag > that used primarily for testing. Since the whole point of [2/3] > is to make [3/3] possible, I was inclined to put both on hold. That all sounds reasonable. I will rebase and resubmit after 1.5.4, with 2/3 using "test -f" and 3/3 matching Gustaf's fix (and 1/3 included if you do not apply it beforehand). Thanks for the response. -Peff