On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> * nd/setup (2010-04-05) 43 commits > [...] > > Probably one or both > > of us should look at it before applying it to next, but assuming it > > passes a basic sanity check, I think the best thing will be to get it in > > 'next' early so we can shake out any bugs during the next cycle. > > I don’t think it’s anywhere near master material yet. To clarify, I don't think that either. But sitting in pu, nobody is even running it. This seems to me like the sort of topic where there will be a lot of unintended fallouts. Besides review, the best way to find them is to get people running it, and 'next' is the most bleeding-edge we have. > when run outside any repository. Probably the checker should be > configured by an environment variable that indicates where to print > its messages and whether to bail out when a problem is detected (for > tests). Yeah, that sounds reasonable, especially if merging this to 'next' would make git unusable. We want to shake out bugs, not punish people running next. :) But I haven't even really looked at the topic in detail yet. > Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, Not at all. This is exactly the sort of in-depth review that is very helpful. Thanks. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html