Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.6.5.4

From: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 3, 2009, 20:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20091203202738.GP23717@inocybe.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <7viqco54xh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I did the second one after seeing that both my Debian box and the
> k.org machine that manpages tarballs are made (FC11 IIRC) had that
> option, and my impression has been that it usually is safe to say
> "even Debian has it, and there wouldn't be many things older than
> that distro", but that is apparently not true.

Heh, that surely used to be a very good rule of thumb. Perhaps these days a rule of whichever is older Debian stable or current RHEL/CentOS would suffice?

> Either we require 0.0.20 or we revert the tip one on this topic.  I
> think the latter is a safe thing to do.

That sounds good to me. I'd like to get the EPEL builds for RHEL/CentOS updated sometime soon, as they're currently still on 1.5.5.6 and that lacks too many of the great improvements in newer git releases. Not having to patch for building the docs is one less thing to worry about.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rowe's Rule: The odds are five to six that the light at the end of the
tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    -- Paul Dickson