# RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not 4 messages from 2015-02-01 to 2015-02-02. Participants: Junio C Hamano, Tom G. Christensen, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/38480 ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-02-01 22:48 Subject: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqr3u98d0f.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com ``` I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer). - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2 already had the same use of curl-config output). - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older Getopt::Long. But the latter is about a test script that lacks work-around, and more importantly, everybody has lived with unconditional X-mailer: output, and the minority with ancient Getopt::Long will survive without being to able to give the new --no-xmailer (or --noxmailer) option just fine. So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and tag 2.3 final without them in a few days. ``` ## Tom G. Christensen, 2015-02-02 09:29 Subject: Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not Message-ID: <54CF4391.9010301@statsbiblioteket.dk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/54CF4391.9010301%40statsbiblioteket.dk In-Reply-To: ``` On 01/02/15 23:48, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was > wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with > ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround > for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer). > > - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2 > already had the same use of curl-config output). > > - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used > to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older > Getopt::Long. > > So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and > tag 2.3 final without them in a few days. > Leaving them for a later release is fine by me. These two patches cover only what broke from 2.2.2 to 2.3, there are further patches needed to actually complete a build atleast on RHEL3. -tgc ``` ## Jeff King, 2015-02-02 20:38 Subject: Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not Message-ID: <20150202203838.GA30001@peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20150202203838.GA30001%40peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 02:48:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I was reviewing the recent bugs and fixes for the last time, and was > wondering if we want to do 2.3-rc3 with build fix for those with > ancient cURL (tc/curl-vernum-output-broken-in-7.11) and workaround > for those with Perl with older Getopt::Long (tc/t9001-noxmailer). > > - The former is not a regression between 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e. 2.2 > already had the same use of curl-config output). > > - The latter, strictly speaking, is a regression in that tests used > to pass but tests in 2.3 no longer pass for those with older > Getopt::Long. > > But the latter is about a test script that lacks work-around, and > more importantly, everybody has lived with unconditional X-mailer: > output, and the minority with ancient Getopt::Long will survive > without being to able to give the new --no-xmailer (or --noxmailer) > option just fine. > > So currently I am leaning to keep these two fixes where they are and > tag 2.3 final without them in a few days. Yeah, I think that is sensible, especially given that the ancient --noxmailer platform reportedly cannot even fully build with v2.2. I thought at first that we also had a regression in pruning with alternates, but it looks like that bug actually went into v2.2. I still think we would want the fix fairly promptly, but it does not need to happen before v2.3 is released. -Peff ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-02-02 20:52 Subject: Re: RFD: should we do another 2.3-rc for t9001-noxmailer? I'd say not Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqq386ot4s1.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20150202203838.GA30001@peff.net> ``` Jeff King writes: > I thought at first that we also had a regression in pruning with > alternates, but it looks like that bug actually went into v2.2. I still > think we would want the fix fairly promptly, but it does not need to > happen before v2.3 is released. Yes, this was regression in v2.2 we did not catch X-<. The fix looks so obvious that it appears nothing should break, but that tends to be the famous last words, so... ```