Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] remote-bzr: couple of fixes

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 5, 2013, 20:58 UTC
Message-ID: <7vzjw9ta8u.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3JtLzE0vne5VH+bHrLvSuOwaWwuGa7DFggjEOt6ixgTA@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

>> So do you want to queue these on top of the "massive" in 'next', not
>> directly on 'master'?
>
> If they apply on master, master. But I'm confused, are the massive
> changes not going to graduate to master? Because if not, I should
> cherry-pick the safest changes, as there's a lot of good stuff there.

I think we discussed and agreed that we would ship it in 1.8.3 if we hear positive feedback from Emacs folks, and my understanding is that I was waiting for you to give me a go-ahead once that happens.

It is entirely up to you to add these two on top of that "massive" stuff, their fate decided by feedback from Emacs folks, or apply these as "much safer than those we need to hear from them; we can verify their validity and safety ourselves without knowing the real world projects that use the program" patches.

The impression I was getting from your response "I hear it breaks for some of them without the patch but I haven't seen the breakage myself" is that it is safer to group 2/2 as part of the rest of the series, but as I heard in the same message that you heard Emacs folks are happy with the entire series, so it wouldn't make much of a difference either way.

Will apply these two to the tip of the "massive" stuff, and merge the result before the next -rc.

Thanks.