problem with insider build for windows and git

when running commands like pull and clone I get the following message:

Cygwin WARNING:
   Couldn't compute FAST_CWD pointer.  This typically occurs if you're using
   an older Cygwin version on a newer Windows.  Please update to the latest
   available Cygwin version from https://cygwin.com/.  If the problem 
persists,
   please see https://cygwin.com/problems.html

Windows build is version 1607, OS BUILD 15002.1001

I assume they broke something that cygwin was depending on.

Hi Michael,

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Michael Gooch wrote:

This is not only a known problem, we already have a fix for it, too.

Please note that the recommended way [*1*] to report bugs in Git for Windows would have led you to this ticket:

	https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/1029

Please also note that this is only a warning, not an error. Even so, the problem has been reported independently several times...

There have been enough real fixes have been accumulated in Git for Windows' `master` branch, and the next official Git version is far enough in the future [*2*] that it was time for a Git for Windows version, including the fix for the FAST_CWD warning.

Ciao, Johannes

Footnote *1*: https://git-for-windows.github.io/#contribute

Footnote *2*: http://tinyurl.com/gitCal suggests that Git v2.12.0 will be released early February soon after Git Merge (and Git for Windows v2.12.0 will follow soon thereafter), and with no patches applied to the `maint` branch since v2.11.0, I do actually not expect any v2.11.1 to happen before v2.12.0 comes out.

Hi,

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

And just to prove me wrong, today I got the first update to `maint` in six weeks, with a message "Almost ready for 2.11.1" at its tip, featuring a whopping 141 commits (95 of which are not merge commits).

So it seems that v2.11.1 may happen soon, after all.

Sorry for my misjudgement, Johannes

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

Sorry for being late. I had a short travel around the year boundary, got sick and have been slow.

Aside from the "ouch, one topic has merged earlier iteration, that was merged to 'master', also now merged to 'maint', and we need to follow up on both" you sent out earlier, are there any other topic that are already in 'master' that should go to 2.11.x track?

Thanks.

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

I know of one more "ouch" moment where my latest iterations did not get picked up: my latest version of the "Avoid a segmentation fault with renaming merges" patch did not output an error message in case of !nce because the code flow will result in more appropriate error messages later anyway. I did not provide a follow-up patch for that because the current version in `maint` is not wrong per se.

Personally, I would have merged 'nd/config-misc-fixes' into `maint`, I guess, and 'jc/abbrev-autoscale-config', and probably also 'jc/latin-1'. The 'rj/git-version-gen-do-not-force-abbrev' topic would be another candidate for inclusion. The 'ah/grammos' strikes me as obvious `maint` material, as well as 'ew/svn-fixes'. I have no opinion on the p4 topics (five, by my counting), as I have no experience with (or for that matter, need for) Perforce, but Lars might have a strong opinion on those.

Having said that, these are the topics that *I* would merge into `maint` if I maintained Git. I don't, so this is just my opinion, man [*1*].

Ciao, Johannes

Footnote *1*: While you read that last part of the sentence, imagine me in slippers and a bathrobe, with a White Russian in my left hand for which I used milk instead of cream (for the White Russian, that is, not for my left hand).

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

The "almost ready" pushout were merging the ones that have been in 'master' for weeks (including that mingw-isatty topic). These three are still on radar, but they were too young and that was the only reason why they were not included in the batch.

I am holding back rj/git-version-gen-do-not-force-abbrev from 2.11.x before 2.12 is released because I am a bit reluctant to tweak the release infractructure in 'maint', before the same tweak hits 'master' and produces a release.

The second one will involve translators and that is why it is not marked for back-merging in the draft release notes.

I agree that the svn thing should have been merged to 'maint' in that batch, but I missed it.

Yes, your opinion was exactly what was requested, and you gave one ;-)