{"thread":{"id":"45527","subject":"[RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","startedAt":"2017-03-28T18:36:11Z","lastAt":"2017-03-30T19:19:07Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Junio C Hamano","Jonathan Nieder","Stefan Beller","Jeff King","Jon Loeliger"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"315585","messageId":"xmqqshlxckr2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","threadId":"45527","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2017-03-28T18:35:29Z","receivedAt":"2017-03-28T18:36:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"There are two topics that are marked as \"Will cook in 'next'\" for\npractically forever in the \"What's cooking\" reports. The world may\nhave become ready for one or both of them, in which case we should\ndo the merge not too late in the cycle.\n\n* jc/merge-drop-old-syntax (2015-04-29) 1 commit\n\n This topic stops \"git merge HEAD \" syntax that\n has been deprecated since October 2007 (and we have issued a\n warning message since around v2.5.0 when the ancient syntax was\n used).\n\n* jk/no-looking-at-dotgit-outside-repo-final (2016-10-26) 1 commit\n\n This is the endgame of the topic to avoid blindly falling back to\n \".git\" when the setup sequence said we are _not_ in Git repository.\n A corner case that happens to work right now may be broken by a call\n to die(\"BUG\").\n\nI am leaning toward including the former in the upcoming release,\nwhose -rc0 is tentatively scheduled to happen on Apr 20th. I think\nthe rest of the system is also ready for the latter (back when we\nmerged it to 'next' and started cooking, there were still a few\ncodepaths that triggered its die(), which have been fixed).\n\nOpinions?\n\n\n\n"},{"id":"315586","messageId":"20170328185149.GS31294@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com","threadId":"45527","inReplyTo":"xmqqshlxckr2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2017-03-28T18:51:49Z","receivedAt":"2017-03-28T18:52:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nJunio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> There are two topics that are marked as \"Will cook in 'next'\" for\n> practically forever in the \"What's cooking\" reports. The world may\n> have become ready for one or both of them, in which case we should\n> do the merge not too late in the cycle.\n>\n> * jc/merge-drop-old-syntax (2015-04-29) 1 commit\n>\n> This topic stops \"git merge HEAD \" syntax that\n> has been deprecated since October 2007 (and we have issued a\n> warning message since around v2.5.0 when the ancient syntax was\n> used).\n>\n> * jk/no-looking-at-dotgit-outside-repo-final (2016-10-26) 1 commit\n>\n> This is the endgame of the topic to avoid blindly falling back to\n> \".git\" when the setup sequence said we are _not_ in Git repository.\n> A corner case that happens to work right now may be broken by a call\n> to die(\"BUG\").\n>\n> I am leaning toward including the former in the upcoming release,\n> whose -rc0 is tentatively scheduled to happen on Apr 20th. I think\n> the rest of the system is also ready for the latter (back when we\n> merged it to 'next' and started cooking, there were still a few\n> codepaths that triggered its die(), which have been fixed).\n>\n> Opinions?\n\nGoogle has been running with both of these for a while. Any problems\nwe ran into were already reported and fixed. I would be all for\nincluding them in the next release.\n\nThanks and hope that helps,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"315587","messageId":"CAGZ79kaxyQUsZvkEGLseLFoWJtdWQ9V8nY9kjUW_4BAmx68eoA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"45527","inReplyTo":"xmqqshlxckr2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2017-03-28T18:57:06Z","receivedAt":"2017-03-28T18:57:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> There are two topics that are marked as \"Will cook in 'next'\" for\n> practically forever in the \"What's cooking\" reports. The world may\n> have become ready for one or both of them, in which case we should\n> do the merge not too late in the cycle.\n>\n> * jc/merge-drop-old-syntax (2015-04-29) 1 commit\n>\n> This topic stops \"git merge HEAD \" syntax that\n> has been deprecated since October 2007 (and we have issued a\n> warning message since around v2.5.0 when the ancient syntax was\n> used).\n\ngit-gui has:\n82fbd8a (git-gui: maintain backwards compatibility for merge syntax, 2016-10-04)\nwhich was the only blocker IIUC.\nSo this looks good to me.\n\n>\n> * jk/no-looking-at-dotgit-outside-repo-final (2016-10-26) 1 commit\n>\n> This is the endgame of the topic to avoid blindly falling back to\n> \".git\" when the setup sequence said we are _not_ in Git repository.\n> A corner case that happens to work right now may be broken by a call\n> to die(\"BUG\").\n>\n> I am leaning toward including the former in the upcoming release,\n> whose -rc0 is tentatively scheduled to happen on Apr 20th. I think\n> the rest of the system is also ready for the latter (back when we\n> merged it to 'next' and started cooking, there were still a few\n> codepaths that triggered its die(), which have been fixed).\n\nJust read through the commit messages of that branch and they\nlook reasonable, but I refrain from having an opinion here.\n\nThanks,\nStefan\n"},{"id":"315593","messageId":"20170328191911.22wxjbukv47jflgl@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"45527","inReplyTo":"20170328185149.GS31294@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2017-03-28T19:19:11Z","receivedAt":"2017-03-28T19:19:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:51:49AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n\n> > * jc/merge-drop-old-syntax (2015-04-29) 1 commit\n> >\n> > This topic stops \"git merge HEAD \" syntax that\n> > has been deprecated since October 2007 (and we have issued a\n> > warning message since around v2.5.0 when the ancient syntax was\n> > used).\n> >\n> > * jk/no-looking-at-dotgit-outside-repo-final (2016-10-26) 1 commit\n> >\n> > This is the endgame of the topic to avoid blindly falling back to\n> > \".git\" when the setup sequence said we are _not_ in Git repository.\n> > A corner case that happens to work right now may be broken by a call\n> > to die(\"BUG\").\n> >\n> > I am leaning toward including the former in the upcoming release,\n> > whose -rc0 is tentatively scheduled to happen on Apr 20th. I think\n> > the rest of the system is also ready for the latter (back when we\n> > merged it to 'next' and started cooking, there were still a few\n> > codepaths that triggered its die(), which have been fixed).\n> >\n> > Opinions?\n> \n> Google has been running with both of these for a while. Any problems\n> we ran into were already reported and fixed. I would be all for\n> including them in the next release.\n\nThanks, I was wondering how much exposure the latter got. It might be a\ngood idea to merge it to \"master\" early in the post-2.13 cycle to get a\nlittle more exposure (since the point of it is really to flush out\nunusual cases, the more people run it before we make a release the\nbetter). But I'm also OK if it's merged to master this cycle, as long as\nit's soon-ish. It's much better to flush out problems in pre-release\nmaster than in a released version.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"315663","messageId":"E1ctD7t-00015R-9G@mylo.jdl.com","threadId":"45527","inReplyTo":"xmqqshlxckr2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","fromName":"Jon Loeliger","fromEmail":"jdl@jdl.com","sentAt":"2017-03-29T12:55:01Z","receivedAt":"2017-03-29T12:55:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jdl@jdl.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/75ce9a10b151acd2c28ec4ab2136dba7b2ff1634530bd04b155981a749d08a64?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"So, like, Junio C Hamano said:\n> There are two topics that are marked as \"Will cook in 'next'\" for\n> practically forever in the \"What's cooking\" reports. The world may\n> have become ready for one or both of them, in which case we should\n> do the merge not too late in the cycle.\n> \n> * jc/merge-drop-old-syntax (2015-04-29) 1 commit\n> \n> \n> * jk/no-looking-at-dotgit-outside-repo-final (2016-10-26) 1 commit\n> \n> Opinions?\n\nWhile I have no technical data on these issues, I think\nthey should go in.\n\njdl\n"},{"id":"315810","messageId":"xmqq60iq4lp8.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","threadId":"45527","inReplyTo":"20170328191911.22wxjbukv47jflgl@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: [RFC] should these two topics graduate to 'master' soon?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2017-03-30T19:18:59Z","receivedAt":"2017-03-30T19:19:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:51:49AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n>\n>> > * jc/merge-drop-old-syntax (2015-04-29) 1 commit\n>> >\n>> > This topic stops \"git merge HEAD \" syntax that\n>> > has been deprecated since October 2007 (and we have issued a\n>> > warning message since around v2.5.0 when the ancient syntax was\n>> > used).\n>> >\n>> > * jk/no-looking-at-dotgit-outside-repo-final (2016-10-26) 1 commit\n>> >\n>> > This is the endgame of the topic to avoid blindly falling back to\n>> > \".git\" when the setup sequence said we are _not_ in Git repository.\n>> > A corner case that happens to work right now may be broken by a call\n>> > to die(\"BUG\").\n>> >\n>> > I am leaning toward including the former in the upcoming release,\n>> > whose -rc0 is tentatively scheduled to happen on Apr 20th. I think\n>> > the rest of the system is also ready for the latter (back when we\n>> > merged it to 'next' and started cooking, there were still a few\n>> > codepaths that triggered its die(), which have been fixed).\n>> >\n>> > Opinions?\n>> \n>> Google has been running with both of these for a while. Any problems\n>> we ran into were already reported and fixed. I would be all for\n>> including them in the next release.\n>\n> Thanks, I was wondering how much exposure the latter got. It might be a\n> good idea to merge it to \"master\" early in the post-2.13 cycle to get a\n> little more exposure (since the point of it is really to flush out\n> unusual cases, the more people run it before we make a release the\n> better). But I'm also OK if it's merged to master this cycle, as long as\n> it's soon-ish. It's much better to flush out problems in pre-release\n> master than in a released version.\n\nOK, let's do both during this cycle, before I take a short break at\nthe beginning of next month.\n\nThanks.\n"}]}