Re: Should we discuss Windows-related changes on git@vger.kernel.org?

> 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.

> >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.