From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CEA2035F for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759277AbcJYRPP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:15:15 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60193 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758312AbcJYRPO (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:15:14 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356FE496FD; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:15:13 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/6hhI1nhp5Teh+AN8XoxvY127bc=; b=Tv322s uqS2WLBd9sf/7Yo5xwV7031giwzEOd87CdqW2foN3JiktU/vjKC+ud8EDPETgsj8 nxmzBFnh91ut2M0ikHfGDcWvOzHY/bhayOcCM1ee4NDHc0oZmPGzWwRjHbAAenY+ lUuFJgR008ZhqcwHNT27BCXDgcFBQdSVJPyn0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=sSWHW/avx8VtzKlHSEyfd16aWrlycSZG GtGb5AlezhyyIzdp4/uHleT9h1gJ7jiR1G0vHypSX+q8TDI51u3pf06426Nw/S33 M1hvWStKT4SCCP+Fo1VBvp3e5ZyHZfG8gaigGmliPlLgjw+j8IOmf+11iJpEKfld D9qD+Y7ZwpM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCA9496FC; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FDF1496FB; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:15:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2016, #06; Mon, 24) References: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:15:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:27:24 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 96DBE47C-9AD6-11E6-9F42-987C12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > One of the initial ways to work around the bugfix was to > > git clone . root # <- add in this step and it works again. > git clone root super > > but instead I will do the preparation for the 'super' project not > in '.' but in 'root', just called differently ("super_remote" ?) > > An additional new test for cloning from '.' will be introduced, too. > > I plan on working on that with highest priority for git after finishing > some attr stuff that I currently have open. So expect a patch (or two) > this week. Hmph, I personally would prefer to defer the "correct behaviour for /." part for the next cycle, which is why I wrote: - the "off-by-one fix" part of sb/submodule-ignore-trailing-slash needs to be in the upcoming release but the "trailing /. in base should not affect the resolution of ../relative/path" part that is still under discussion can wait. Which means we'd need a few more !MINGW prerequisites in the tests by -rc0. at the beginning of the message you are responding to, and I also thought that was consistent and in agreement with what you said earlier in > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > There isn't enough time to include this topic in the upcoming > > release within the current https://tinyurl.com/gitCal calendar, > > however, which places the final on Nov 11th. > > > > I am wondering if it makes sense to delay 2.11 by moving the final > > by 4 weeks to Dec 9th. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Speaking of what to and not to include in the upcoming release, we > > do want to include Stefan's off-by-one fix to the submodule-helper, > > but that is blocked on Windows end due to the test. > > I'd be happy either way, i.e. we could revert that fix and make a release? > AFAICT, Windows only has broken tests, not broken functionality with that > submodule bug fix. to which I responded in > If you are referring the "trailing /. should not make difference > when resolving ../relative/path" change with "rever that fix", I > think that may be a reasonable way to proceed. Even though that > change is a bugfix (at least from the point of view by me and j6t in > the recent discussion), it is a behaviour change that we would want > to see feedback from existing submodule users and deserves a longer > gestation period. And that part is not yet in 'next' yet ;-) > > > If we want a longer gestation period, we'd ideally merge it to master > > just after a release, such that we "cook" it in master without having > > it in any release (we had a similar discussion for the diff heuristics IIRC). > > Yes. > > It would mean that we would need a separate patch that adds the > !MINGW prerequisite to some tests to what is on 'next', as the early > patches on sb/submodule-ignore-trailing-slash~ that fixes off-by-one > is the right thing to do either way. It of course needs help from > Windows folks to validate the results. So...