2013/12/31 Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxx>: > 2013/12/30 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxx> writes: >>> I'd like to note that it's IMO worth including in the 'maint' branch >>> as it's a crasher. Especially so since the real fix has been merged >>> in the subversion upstream and nominated for 1.8 branch, so the >>> workaround may soon lose its relevance. >> >> I do not quite get this part, though. >> >> If they refused to fix it for real, it would make it likely that >> this workaround will stay relevant for a long time, in which case it >> would be worth cherry-picking to an older maintenance track. But if >> this workaround is expected to lose its relevance shortly, I see it >> as one less reason to cherry-pick it to an older maintenance track. >> >> Confused... > > I thought it was exactly the other way around. By the time the next > feature release reaches users, chances are they'd already have > subversion with the fix. OTOH the workaround would benefit those who > get their maintenance release of git (e.g. through their Linux distro > update) before they get their maintenance release of subversion. So this actually happened: 1.8.5.3 is out, and some distributions are shipping it (Arch, Debian), but the workaround didn't make it there. Could you please consider including it in 'maint', so that 1.8.5.4 brings them a working combination of git and subversion? Roman. -- 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