Heya, On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 06:53, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 1.7.4 is out. I'd like to stop and calm the tree down for a few days > so that we can catch any brown-paper-bag bugs before moving things > forward, and then open the floodgate for the next cycle, which I am > inclined to designate as "We would have done these differently if we > were creating git from scratch with the experience we have and wisdom > we have gained" cycle, allowing minor backward incompatibilities, > somewhat like 1.6.0 but not so drastic. ÂThe result would probably > be called 1.8.0--the details in a separate message. Nice, is this based on the topics that are currently cooking, or on people having indicated an intent to submit such patches? Now that we're past 1.7.4., perhaps it's time to resurrect a dead thread. From a past "What's cooking": On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:20, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ãvar ArnfjÃrà Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:34, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Needs a bit more minor work to get the basic code structure right. >> >> And I'm still not sure (see earlier replies to "What's Cooking" posts) >> what needs to be done to make it better. > > One open question was why you do not want to move 'LIB_OBJS += gettext.o' > away from the LIB_OBJS section down to the configuration evaluation > section, i.e., why gettext.o would be different from block-sha1/sha1.o. Ãvar, you didn't respond to that message. Junio, do I understand correctly that if this problem is addressed the topic is ready to be merged to next? -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier -- 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