Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2018, #04; Fri, 17)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2018, 17:26 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqlg91aqzh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180818065953.GE241538@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

>> Usually, I refrain from merging larger topics in 'next' down to
>> 'master' when we get close to -rc0, but I am wondering if it is
>> better to merge all of them to 'master', even the ones on the larger
>> and possibly undercooked side, expecting that we collectively spend
>> effort on hunting and fixing bugs in them during the pre-release
>> freeze period.  If we were to go that route, I'd want everybody's
>> buy-in and I'll promise to ignore any shiny new toys that appear on
>> list that are not regression fixes to topics merged to 'master'
>> since the end of the previous cycle to make sure people are not
>> distracted.
>
> Based on what I see in 'next' (midx, range-diff, etc), I quite like
> this idea.

The comment above was about the ones that was marked as "Will merge to 'master'" that are in 'next', not the ones marked as "Will cook in 'next'", like the midx ones.

I am not worried about range-diff, as I do not think it came close enough to the core-ish code to break other things; the potential damage is fairly isolated and the worst would be that we'd realize that we shipped with a new command that was buggy after the release, which is not the end of the world. 'midx' and 'reachable' are quite different stories, as bugs in them would in the worst case lead to an immediate and unrecoverable repository corruption.

So I am still on the fence, even though I am leaning toward merging them down to 'master'.