Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 2, 2015, 20:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150202203838.GA30001@peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqr3u98d0f.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 02:48:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was > wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with > ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround > for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer). > > - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2 > already had the same use of curl-config output). > > - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used > to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older > Getopt::Long. > > But the latter is about a test script that lacks work-around, and > more importantly, everybody has lived with unconditional X-mailer: > output, and the minority with ancient Getopt::Long will survive > without being to able to give the new --no-xmailer (or --noxmailer) > option just fine. > > So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and > tag 2.3 final without them in a few days.
Yeah, I think that is sensible, especially given that the ancient --noxmailer platform reportedly cannot even fully build with v2.2.
I thought at first that we also had a regression in pruning with alternates, but it looks like that bug actually went into v2.2. I still think we would want the fix fairly promptly, but it does not need to happen before v2.3 is released.
-Peff