From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] prefix discovery at runtime (on Windows) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:01:25 -0700 Message-ID: <7v3al35xmy.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1218977083-14526-1-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 17 20:02:42 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 1KUmaP-0003Dc-A3 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:02:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755457AbYHQSBe (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755132AbYHQSBe (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01:34 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:45694 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752901AbYHQSBd (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECFB65BC8; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28F7A65BC7; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1218977083-14526-1-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> (Steffen Prohaska's message of "Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:44:36 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 85FF0936-6C86-11DD-A98E-B29498D589B0-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steffen Prohaska writes: > Apologies for proposing such large changes that late in the release cycle. > Maybe we want to postpone the series until 1.6.0.1 or even 1.6.1. Well, from the cursory look, it does not seem to be 1.6.0.1 material, even though it is possible to fork a topic at 1.6.0 and use the changes in 'next', then 'master', and eventually to 'maint' to produce 1.6.0.X, if all of this hapapens before 1.6.1. I wouldn't mind at all if the binary distribution on Windows is based on "git.git plus port specific patchset that will eventually be sent upstream" like it used to be. In fact it might even be preferrable, as I won't be testing ports to that platform myself anyway.