On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> One of the initial ways to work around the bugfix was to
>>
>> git clone . root # <- add in this step and it works again.
>> git clone root super
>>
>> but instead I will do the preparation for the 'super' project not
>> in '.' but in 'root', just called differently ("super_remote" ?)
>>
>> An additional new test for cloning from '.' will be introduced, too.
>>
>> I plan on working on that with highest priority for git after finishing
>> some attr stuff that I currently have open. So expect a patch (or two)
>> this week.
>
> Hmph, I personally would prefer to defer the "correct behaviour for
> /." part for the next cycle, which is why I wrote:
Ok. The first 2 patches are in good shape for this cycle, though.
And the /. thing will wait until next cycle then, i.e. I can drop priority
as I wish
>
> - the "off-by-one fix" part of sb/submodule-ignore-trailing-slash
> needs to be in the upcoming release but the "trailing /. in base
> should not affect the resolution of ../relative/path" part that
> is still under discussion can wait. Which means we'd need a few
> more !MINGW prerequisites in the tests by -rc0.
>
> at the beginning of the message you are responding to, and I also
> thought that was consistent and in agreement with what you said
> earlier in <CAGZ79kaq85c1Gk1aRSrdQGp1Nm9p6tN0jXbFvTN0v+9ehooxYg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > There isn't enough time to include this topic in the upcoming
>> > release within the current https://tinyurl.com/gitCal calendar,
>> > however, which places the final on Nov 11th.
>> >
>> > I am wondering if it makes sense to delay 2.11 by moving the final
>> > by 4 weeks to Dec 9th.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Speaking of what to and not to include in the upcoming release, we
>> > do want to include Stefan's off-by-one fix to the submodule-helper,
>> > but that is blocked on Windows end due to the test.
>>
>> I'd be happy either way, i.e. we could revert that fix and make a release?
>> AFAICT, Windows only has broken tests, not broken functionality with that
>> submodule bug fix.
>
> to which I responded in <xmqqpomp33km.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
and you said:
> It of course needs help from
> Windows folks to validate the results.
So maybe instead of adding !MINGW we rather want to apply
https://public-inbox.org/git/2908451e-4273-8826-8989-5572263cc283@xxxxxxxx/
instead for now?