Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2024, #04; Wed, 12)

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2396 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:22:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 05:30:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> * ps/document-breaking-changes (2024-06-04) 4 commits
> >>  - BreakingChanges: document that we do not plan to deprecate git-checkout
> >>  - BreakingChanges: document removal of grafting
> >>  - BreakingChanges: document upcoming change from "sha1" to "sha256"
> >>  - docs: introduce document to announce breaking changes
> >> 
> >>  The structure of the document that records longer-term project
> >>  decisions to deprecate/remove/update various behaviour has been
> >>  outlined.
> >> 
> >>  Getting there.
> >>  source: <cover.1717504292.git.ps@pks.im>
> >
> > Just to make sure I understand the status: do you expect me to do
> > anything in this context? The latest version did have some final
> > discussion, but from my point of view there wasn't anything actionable.
> 
> Yeah, the only thing from the discussion that may be missing is this
> one on [1/4]:
> 
>  - https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZmE8myG5c99UJeCA@tanuki/
> 
> But otherwise, the typofix for [3/4] in the thread has already been
> amended in when the topic was queued, so we are almost there.
> 
> I do not know if we want to explain the version number scheme there
> (in your first response [*], you said you didn't want to give the
> impression that the jump from 1.5.x to 1.6.0 was a huge deal,
> implying a move from 2.45.x to 2.46.0 can be equally huge, but in a
> later response [*], you seem to have liked the explanation to clear
> potential confusion.  If that is your final position, then [1/4]
> needs updating (with a reroll or just saying "yeah, squash that
> update in").  If that is not, we can go with what we have, but I
> haven't heard an explicit "even though I said it is a good addition,
> explanation of the historical version scheme is a bit out of place,
> so let's scratch it", either.  I have no strong preference myself,
> but merging it to 'next' will close the door for you to say "ah, I
> forgot about 1/4" later, so that was primarily what I was waiting
> for.

Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. I definitely think explaining the
version schema is helpful in this context, so let me add it in and send
another version of this patch series.

Thanks!

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]