Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Support marking .git/ (or all files) as hidden on Windows

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 10, 2016, 17:22 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh9e5rfoz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1605101036460.4092@virtualbox>

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

Show 11 quoted lines

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Mon, 9 May 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>> 
>> > This is a heavily version of patches we carried in Git for Windows for
>
> s/patches/patched/
>
> I wish I had a penny for each time I wrote this particular typo.

    This is a heavily version of patched we carried...

does not sound all that grammatical.

    These are heavily modified version of patches...

is a possibility, but perhaps you meant

    This is a heavily patched version of what we carried...

Show 21 quoted lines

>> OK, so what do you want me to do with this "heavily modified
>> version"?  Earlier you responded:
>> 
>>     > I have a huge preference for a code that has been production for
>>     > years over a new code that would cook at most two weeks in 'next'.
>> 
>>     I agree. However, it does not fill me with confidence that we did not
>>     catch those two bugs earlier. Even one round of reviews (including a
>>     partial rewrite) was better than all that time since the regressions
>>     were introduced.
>> 
>> So do we want to follow the regular "a few days in 'pu' in case
>> somebody finds 'oops this trivial change is needed', a week or two
>> in 'next' for simmering as everybody else, and finally down to
>> 'master'" schedule?
>
> Well, I plan to include this patch (replacing the original
> version) in whatever Git for Windows version I release next.  I
> guess that we can go with the regular way in git.git. You could
> just as well merge it to master right away, it won't matter much
> as far as Git for Windows is concerned.

OK.