gitster@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:03 -0800: > Pete Wyckoff <pw@xxxxxxxx> writes: [..] > > Patch 03 is a regression fix, found and narrowed down thanks to > > much work by Damien Gérard. But it is obscure enough that I'm > > not proposing it for a maintenance release. > > Thanks. > > I am inclined to say that we should queue this on a fork from > 'maint, merge the result to 'master' before 1.9-rc1 and ship the > result as part of the upcoming release, and then possibly merging > the topic to 1.8.5.x maintenance release after that. > > This is primarily because I personally do not have p4 expertise to > test or properly judge this (iow, you are the area maintainer, the > authority), and I somehow have this feeling that parking in 'next' > for extended period of time would not give meaningfully larger > exposure to the code. > > What do you think? > > If you feel uneasy about such a fast-track, I wouldn't push it, > though. I think you're right that fast-track is the best choice, and low risk. The diffs came out identical, and it merges cleanly to master, and passes all tests in both. Thanks Eric for the commit message fixes too! Here comes a v2 that is otherwise identical, but based on origin/maint from a couple weeks ago. -- Pete -- 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