{"thread":{"id":"38480","subject":"RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not","startedAt":"2015-02-01T22:48:00Z","lastAt":"2015-02-02T20:52:30Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Junio C Hamano","Tom G. Christensen","Jeff King"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"255497","messageId":"xmqqr3u98d0f.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","threadId":"38480","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2015-02-01T22:48:00Z","receivedAt":"2015-02-01T22:48:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was\nwondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with\nancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround\nfor those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer).\n\n - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2\n already had the same use of curl-config output).\n\n - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used\n to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older\n Getopt::Long.\n\nBut the latter is about a test script that lacks work-around, and\nmore importantly, everybody has lived with unconditional X-mailer:\noutput, and the minority with ancient Getopt::Long will survive\nwithout being to able to give the new --no-xmailer (or --noxmailer)\noption just fine.\n\nSo currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and\ntag 2.3 final without them in a few days.\n"},{"id":"255508","messageId":"54CF4391.9010301@statsbiblioteket.dk","threadId":"38480","inReplyTo":"xmqqr3u98d0f.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not","fromName":"Tom G. Christensen","fromEmail":"tgc@statsbiblioteket.dk","sentAt":"2015-02-02T09:29:53Z","receivedAt":"2015-02-02T09:29:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tgc@statsbiblioteket.dk","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/912180?v=4"},"body":"On 01/02/15 23:48, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was\n> wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with\n> ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround\n> for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer).\n>\n> - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2\n> already had the same use of curl-config output).\n>\n> - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used\n> to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older\n> Getopt::Long.\n>\n> So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and\n> tag 2.3 final without them in a few days.\n>\n\nLeaving them for a later release is fine by me.\nThese two patches cover only what broke from 2.2.2 to 2.3, there are \nfurther patches needed to actually complete a build atleast on RHEL3.\n\n-tgc\n"},{"id":"255540","messageId":"20150202203838.GA30001@peff.net","threadId":"38480","inReplyTo":"xmqqr3u98d0f.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2015-02-02T20:38:38Z","receivedAt":"2015-02-02T20:38:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 02:48:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was\n> wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with\n> ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround\n> for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer).\n> \n> - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2\n> already had the same use of curl-config output).\n> \n> - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used\n> to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older\n> Getopt::Long.\n> \n> But the latter is about a test script that lacks work-around, and\n> more importantly, everybody has lived with unconditional X-mailer:\n> output, and the minority with ancient Getopt::Long will survive\n> without being to able to give the new --no-xmailer (or --noxmailer)\n> option just fine.\n> \n> So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and\n> tag 2.3 final without them in a few days.\n\nYeah, I think that is sensible, especially given that the ancient\n--noxmailer platform reportedly cannot even fully build with v2.2.\n\nI thought at first that we also had a regression in pruning with\nalternates, but it looks like that bug actually went into v2.2. I still\nthink we would want the fix fairly promptly, but it does not need to\nhappen before v2.3 is released.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"255542","messageId":"xmqq386ot4s1.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","threadId":"38480","inReplyTo":"20150202203838.GA30001@peff.net","subject":"Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2015-02-02T20:52:30Z","receivedAt":"2015-02-02T20:52:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n> I thought at first that we also had a regression in pruning with\n> alternates, but it looks like that bug actually went into v2.2. I still\n> think we would want the fix fairly promptly, but it does not need to\n> happen before v2.3 is released.\n\nYes, this was regression in v2.2 we did not catch X-<. The fix\nlooks so obvious that it appears nothing should break, but that\ntends to be the famous last words, so...\n"}]}