[ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[Junio C Hamano]

GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4 is found at a new location.

RPM
	http://kernel.org:/pub/software/git/RPMS/

Debian [*1*]
	http://kernel.org:/pub/software/git/debian/

This is mostly fixes, with some improvements.  As I said on the
git list earlier, no more major feature/semantics changes after
this is expected until 1.0.

Highlights are:

 - After a conflicting merge, the index file is left unmerged.
   As before, after such conflicting merge, "git diff" can be
   used to view the differences between the half-merged file and
   "our" branch version by default, but now you can say "git
   diff --base" and "git diff --theirs" to view the differences
   since the merge-base version and the other branch's version,
   respectively.

 - git-daemon and other git native protocols allow user-relative
   paths (e.g. git://host/~user/repo).  git-daemon's path
   whitelist check used to be done with the realpath (i.e. what
   getcwd() returns) in 0.99.9k and later "master" branch
   versions, but it was changed back to check against what the
   requester asked.

 - The commands have been future-proofed so that they refuse to
   operate on repositories from future unknown versions, to
   avoid corrupting them by mistake.

 - Bisect can take pathspec to cut down the number of revisions
   that need to be tested.

 - Many low-level commands have been updated to work better from
   subdirectories (much of the barebone porcelain wrappers that
   deal with the whole repository or the whole tree still need
   to be run from the top level, though).

 - Merge used to fail when it removed a file (fixed).

 - When only GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY was exported things broke
   since 0.99.9k (fixed).

 - Comes with updated gitk.

[Footnote]

*1* It appears Debian finally has an official maintainer, so I
am inclined to stop building and supplying the debs starting
from the next version --- one less thing to worry about for me.
I hope the Debian side splits the packages along the same line
as we do RPMs.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[Horst von Brand]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4 is found at a new location.

What would that new location be?
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[H. Peter Anvin]

Horst von Brand wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> 
>>GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4 is found at a new location.
> 
> What would that new location be?

If you get RPMS, you want to get them from:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/$basearch/

I don't believe non-RPMs have changed.

	-hpa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[Gerrit Pape]

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:21:13AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> *1* It appears Debian finally has an official maintainer, so I

Yes, I've taken over maintainership, and introduced the git-core package
into Debian/unstable, the git tools previously were included in the
cogito package.

> am inclined to stop building and supplying the debs starting
> from the next version --- one less thing to worry about for me.
> I hope the Debian side splits the packages along the same line
> as we do RPMs.

I'll do so and split off git-arch, git-cvs, git-svn, git-email from the
git-core package, as already done with gitk.  Additionally I have the
webdocs in a separate git-doc package, maybe that's a good idea for the
rpms also.

Regards, Gerrit.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[Junio C Hamano]

Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:21:13AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> *1* It appears Debian finally has an official maintainer, so I
>
> Yes, I've taken over maintainership, and introduced the git-core package
> into Debian/unstable, the git tools previously were included in the
> cogito package.

This question is probably relevant only to you and people who
want to build deb themselves until you package the updated
upstream, but what is your (and others') preference on debian/
directory in what _I_ ship?

I see three possibilities:

 - Do not care, and keep them as they are as they bitrot.

 - Remove debian/ from the upstream tree.

 - You feed patches to me, and I promise you not to touch
   debian/ area, except adding a new -0 entry at the top of the
   changelog when bumping the version number up, and perhaps
   adjusting to the main Makefile changes if the solution is
   obvious.

I am neutral between the second and the third.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[Jon Loeliger]

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 14:16, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> This question is probably relevant only to you and people who
> want to build deb themselves until you package the updated
> upstream, but what is your (and others') preference on debian/
> directory in what _I_ ship?

I would like to see it remain and be current, please.

Thanks,
jdl

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9l aka 1.0rc4

[Gerrit Pape]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:16:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:21:13AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> *1* It appears Debian finally has an official maintainer, so I
> >
> > Yes, I've taken over maintainership, and introduced the git-core package
> > into Debian/unstable, the git tools previously were included in the
> > cogito package.
> 
> This question is probably relevant only to you and people who
> want to build deb themselves until you package the updated
> upstream, but what is your (and others') preference on debian/
> directory in what _I_ ship?
> 
> I see three possibilities:
> 
>  - Do not care, and keep them as they are as they bitrot.
> 
>  - Remove debian/ from the upstream tree.
> 
>  - You feed patches to me, and I promise you not to touch
>    debian/ area, except adding a new -0 entry at the top of the
>    changelog when bumping the version number up, and perhaps
>    adjusting to the main Makefile changes if the solution is
>    obvious.
> 
> I am neutral between the second and the third.

Normally we suggest upstream to not ship a debian/ directory at all, and
I would prefer that.  But I can understand that people may got used to
it, and prefer to build the packages on their own.  So I'm also fine
with feeding you with patches, but need to get 0.99.9l into the Debian
archive first (already prepared, waiting in a 'new packages' queue), and
then adapt the build process to use the debian/ directory in the git
tarball, instead of the current tarball-in-tarball approach.

This may take some days, and there are major changes to the debian/
directory as I personally don't use the usual debhelper approach.

Thanks, Gerrit.