From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Should we discuss Windows-related changes on git@vger.kernel.org? Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:57:04 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <65365AC4-D7C9-462B-8239-F3B35F7ECBEF@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Johannes Sixt , Junio C Hamano , msysGit , Git Mailing List To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 11 17:58:08 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 1KHL0a-0006sJ-54 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:58:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752524AbYGKP5J (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:57:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751074AbYGKP5I (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:57:08 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:43215 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750992AbYGKP5H (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:57:07 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 15:57:05 -0000 Received: from grape.st-and.ac.uk (EHLO grape.st-and.ac.uk) [138.251.155.28] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 11 Jul 2008 17:57:05 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+iU082pCGiB2oe746ISTTYnz1zxlbE0V5C/fbJ0T /pEuw0XX978r9u X-X-Sender: gene099@racer In-Reply-To: <65365AC4-D7C9-462B-8239-F3B35F7ECBEF@zib.de> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.61 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > >On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > > > >I decided to stop queuing changes in 4msysgit. Instead I'd like to > > >bring the diff between Junio's and 4msysgit's master to zero. This > > >seems to be achievable after Junio merged Hannes' MinGW changes. > > > > > >I think all Windows-related changes to the git code base could be > > >discussed directly on the main git list and the msysgit list would be > > >reserved for the MinGW/MSYS runtime environment and the installer. > > > >I disagree. Judging from the mails I read on the git list, Junio gets > >really swamped by patches these days (what with our very productive GSoC > >students). > > Sending the patches to the git list does not necessarily mean that > they are directly addressed to Junio. We discuss JGIT, EGIT, gitk, > and git gui patches on the list too. AFAIK, none of them are applied > by Junio directly but by the respective maintainers. We could handle > Windows-related patches similarly. Then what is the msysGit list about? No, I really disagree. Windows support is too large a thing, and partly a too disgusting one to bother the git list. > >I really think that we should discuss the patches on the msysGit list > >first, whip them into shape, and then send them off. > > > >Just think of those patches that were sent off, only to realize that > >they were no longer needed. That should not have happened. > > I intentionally sent the patches to show and discuss the differences > between the state of the MinGW port in Junio's master and in 4msysgit. > Some of the patches could be reverted in 4msysgit. But, at least one > patch was unrelated to MinGW and is now in master. Some other patches > need more work and are currently improved. I think this was not a waste > of time. IMO we could have discussed first what is the current state on the msysGit list, and I would have commented there already on the patches that I think would no longer be needed. Then the patch would have been sent off, and be in master, too. The difference: it would have been more efficient. Those people who can test if something is still needed on Windows are on the msysGit list. We do not really need to clutter git@vger more than necessary. Ciao, Dscho