From: Steffen Prohaska Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:24:16 GMT Subject: Re: Should we discuss Windows-related changes on git@vger.kernel.org? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Jul 11, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > >> On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: >>> >>>> I decided to stop queuing changes in 4msysgit. Instead I'd like to >>>> bring the diff between Junio's and 4msysgit's master to zero. This >>>> seems to be achievable after Junio merged Hannes' MinGW changes. >>>> >>>> I think all Windows-related changes to the git code base could be >>>> discussed directly on the main git list and the msysgit list >>>> would be >>>> reserved for the MinGW/MSYS runtime environment and the installer. >>> >>> I disagree. Judging from the mails I read on the git list, Junio >>> gets >>> really swamped by patches these days (what with our very >>> productive GSoC >>> students). >> >> Sending the patches to the git list does not necessarily mean that >> they are directly addressed to Junio. We discuss JGIT, EGIT, gitk, >> and git gui patches on the list too. AFAIK, none of them are applied >> by Junio directly but by the respective maintainers. We could handle >> Windows-related patches similarly. > > Then what is the msysGit list about? I think the msysGit list could be useful for: - Everything that is in the msysgit repo, i.e. the MinGW/MSYS runtime environment and the installers. - User questions, including the issue tracker. > No, I really disagree. Windows support is too large a thing, and > partly a > too disgusting one to bother the git list. My understanding is that the mainline of git starts supporting the MinGW port with version 1.6.0. The MinGW port is merged to Junio's master, so the remaining differences between Junio's master and 4msysgit's master should be removed and afterwards new changes should be discussed, improved, and applied to Junio's master anyway. This would also allow to directly test Junio's next on Windows. >>> I really think that we should discuss the patches on the msysGit >>> list >>> first, whip them into shape, and then send them off. >>> >>> Just think of those patches that were sent off, only to realize that >>> they were no longer needed. That should not have happened. >> >> I intentionally sent the patches to show and discuss the differences >> between the state of the MinGW port in Junio's master and in >> 4msysgit. >> Some of the patches could be reverted in 4msysgit. But, at least one >> patch was unrelated to MinGW and is now in master. Some other >> patches >> need more work and are currently improved. I think this was not a >> waste >> of time. > > IMO we could have discussed first what is the current state on the > msysGit > list, and I would have commented there already on the patches that I > think > would no longer be needed. > > Then the patch would have been sent off, and be in master, too. > > The difference: it would have been more efficient. Those people who > can > test if something is still needed on Windows are on the msysGit list. > > We do not really need to clutter git@vger more than necessary. But git 1.6 will contain the MinGW port. Shouldn't related patches then be discussed on git@vger? Steffen