From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greened@obbligato.org (David A. Greene) Subject: Re: git-subtree Ready #2 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:31:22 -0600 Message-ID: <87ipj0wy51.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> References: <877gztmfwy.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <8739acra5j.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <20120215050855.GB29902@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87sjicpsr1.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <87ty2ro1zf.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <20120220205346.GA6335@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Avery Pennarun To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 21 06:33:59 2012 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 1RziMM-0001RQ-LD for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:33:54 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750804Ab2BUFdu (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:33:50 -0500 Received: from li209-253.members.linode.com ([173.255.199.253]:50065 "EHLO johnson.obbligato.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750765Ab2BUFdt (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:33:49 -0500 Received: from c-75-73-20-8.hsd1.mn.comcast.net ([75.73.20.8] helo=smith.obbligato.org) by johnson.obbligato.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RziMg-0006jF-Bv; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:34:14 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20120220205346.GA6335@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:53:46 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Filter-Spam-Score: () X-Filter-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "johnson.obbligato.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Jeff King writes: > Of course there's no real reason we can't take it slow by putting it in > contrib, and then graduating from there. It just seems like an > unnecessary and complicated interim step. Either way, I do think it's > worth saving the commit history by doing a real merge. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through tr Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > Of course there's no real reason we can't take it slow by putting it in > contrib, and then graduating from there. It just seems like an > unnecessary and complicated interim step. Either way, I do think it's > worth saving the commit history by doing a real merge. I have no problem starting off in contrib. I was asking more about the logistics of getting there. > As a non-user, I am totally fine with it. I think the burden is not that > high, and you have already promised to deal with ongoing maintenance > issues. Indeed, I'm more than happy to help with maintenance. I have one or two fixes/enhancements on my list, in fact. -Dave