Re: [PATCH v1] Travis: also test on 32-bit Linux

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 3, 2017, 18:43 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh93a9p5r.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703030315580.3767@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Another question is which v3 people mean in the discussion, when you
>> and Dscho work on improvements at the same time and each post the
>> "next" version marked as "v3", and they comment on one of them?
>
> But then, Lars & I communicate in a more direct way than the mailing list
> when discussing teeny tiny details such as: "could you have a look at my
> mail" or "how would you change .travis.yml to do XYZ".
>
> With that level of communication, there is almost no danger of two v3s.

Sure, that is true between two (or more) people who communicate privately. The issue you raised on Lars's "v1" and your original unversioned one can be seen either (1) as similar to having two v1's or (2) having (an implicit) v0 and v1 that won't cause confusion.

As I said already, because the v0 and v1 (or v1 and v1) came from two different people, it's not such a big deal if Lars named his first one v1 or v2, just like it won't cause problem if his reroll were done as v2 or v3.

I see he did v2 which you Acked in a different thread. Will replace what's been on 'pu' and running with Travis the past few days with it. Let's wait for one or more Travis cycles and then merge it to 'next'.

Thanks.