From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A95943AA4 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708399607; cv=none; b=RsCCUPgjTe20St3fdLbfb22qLttzpXQwn1s5dOC4hW4VyrjD/ROZTxygMXYZzkj3QRPpHJU3dpG07m84rYvHeayqd/fsiwGATiF763ty5XbfuDsq/GSzFhs2UtWIAbsAn2f6mHTkBcryk8YEFgoTD6GoxHwyeB5+s/mSHzr70No= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708399607; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Zr64am/Kigi0Q39FgXkSazUBQifwT5L3WLB6lWFBfN8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BKWnt4OOfXKhhaKwtdILqoWaslUaNhB1NKbzM9qbMjcCuq1KcjFnMUkmpQTZ7JYkdXaeeso3M3YaGGrkrKc/Fs7qKR0vGXpNhm04Y2F460y6ZsvnKi7tzGrFKjZaq2W8NLTR0LTn9xCdQD7UIOgEBk1KIgSv2/LJXufC7EM3s0o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=KFEkWbRg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="KFEkWbRg" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81961D5459; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:26:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Zr64am/Kigi0Q39FgXkSazUBQifwT5L3WLB6lW FBfN8=; b=KFEkWbRgHSTPzXv6Z4JtikLBPrZjvIRmZtjqvyPg7UhLWtJwCtp8if nwJHdUahqoNmsZVXbqIUeZuUwG9kSiYm4LdEkL82dEGReyd1XPrpsQPnVP9XcKwM i7xEvscuPSUSSM3X0SA0SZI+m/2VAW8izD/m9hpWWPjCJo1j/y5RU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0FD1D5458; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:26:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.165.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4445E1D5456; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:26:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Philippe Blain , Linus Arver , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH] trailer: fix comment/cut-line regression with opts->no_divider In-Reply-To: <20240220010936.GA1793660@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:09:36 -0500") References: <8b4738ad-62cd-789e-712e-bd45a151b4ac@gmail.com> <20240217060434.GE539459@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240220010936.GA1793660@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:26:43 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DEFDC5DA-CF9F-11EE-B27E-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:42:45AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Thanks, both, for finding a rather unfortunate regression. Perhaps >> it is worth delaying 2.44 final by a week or so to include a fix (or >> a revert if it comes to it). > > Hmm, I had thought this was pre-2.44, but it was actually in the 2.43.x > maintenance series (so it is not a regression going from 2.43.2 to > 2.44.0, but it is from 2.43.0 to 2.44.0). I've been trying to be a bit aggressive this cycle to merge various clean-up topics, together with real bugfixes, to 'maint'. Those who often skip the -rcX but diligently follow numbered releases found a few potential regressions in 2.44-rc as a result, which I could say is a great success ;-). In addition, I was planning to have only one -rc release without going -rc2 before the final, but we may need one if only for this fix. The fix in the patch looks quite straight-forward. Thanks.