From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:38:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20150202203838.GA30001@peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 02 21:38:46 2015 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 1YINld-0007cE-OT for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:38:46 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933483AbbBBUim (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:38:42 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:44244 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933243AbbBBUil (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:38:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 17990 invoked by uid 102); 2 Feb 2015 20:38:41 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:38:41 -0600 Received: (qmail 11748 invoked by uid 107); 2 Feb 2015 20:39:16 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:39:16 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:38:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 02:48:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was > wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with > ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround > for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer). > > - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2 > already had the same use of curl-config output). > > - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used > to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older > Getopt::Long. > > But the latter is about a test script that lacks work-around, and > more importantly, everybody has lived with unconditional X-mailer: > output, and the minority with ancient Getopt::Long will survive > without being to able to give the new --no-xmailer (or --noxmailer) > option just fine. > > So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and > tag 2.3 final without them in a few days. Yeah, I think that is sensible, especially given that the ancient --noxmailer platform reportedly cannot even fully build with v2.2. I thought at first that we also had a regression in pruning with alternates, but it looks like that bug actually went into v2.2. I still think we would want the fix fairly promptly, but it does not need to happen before v2.3 is released. -Peff