Re: [PATCH] config.mak.uname: Cygwin: Use renames for creation

From: Adam Dinwoodie <adam@dinwoodie.org>
Date: Aug 11, 2015, 10:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20150811100527.GW14466@dinwoodie.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwpx3t102.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:08:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> But in the end, I'd prefer the choice of the compiled-in default up
> to the port maintainers.  You earlier said:
> 
>     This problem was reported on the Cygwin mailing list at
>     https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-08/msg00102.html (amongst others) and
>     is being applied as a manual patch to the Cygwin builds until the patch
>     is taken here.
> 
> so my preference is to see Cygwin continue to do so for a couple
> release cycles of ours to make sure all Cygwin end-users are happy
> and consider the flip of the default a good change for them, and
> then the official Cygwin packager of Git sends a patch our way.

Wait a few releases then resubmit assuming we've not had complaints from Cygwin user. Okay!

> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-08/msg00102.html seems to indicate
> that somebody called Adam Dinwoodie is wearing Git maintainer hat,
> so perhaps you may be that "official Cygwin packager of Git" ;-)

That would indeed be yours truly :)

Show 6 quoted lines

> I agree with everything you said in that message to Peter---the
> patch should be included when you hear reports of `git config
> core.createObject rename` helping more people.  After versions of
> Cygwin Git package with such a change proves good, let's reduce the
> workload of Cygwin Git maintainer by upstreaming that change to my
> tree.  But not before.

Cool. FWIW, the reason we've started applying this patch to the downstream Cygwin builds is that I've now seen a number of reports (primarily on Stack Overflow) of this problem where that config change has fixed things. I'd been holding off until I had those extra reports, but now I have them I made the patch and figured I'd submit it upstream at the same time. As above, I'll wait a while until we're happy it's stable, and resubmit at that point.

(On which note, I should probably submit the patch to the git-gui Makefile we've had in our builds since back in v1.7.9, before I took over the maintainership, since that one clearly is pretty stable...)

Thanks!