Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:52:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > I actually wonder if it is worth carrying around the O_NOATIME hack at >> > all. >> >> Yes, I share the thought. We no longer have too many loose objects >> to matter. >> >> I do not mind flipping the order, but I'd prefer to cook the result >> even longer. I am tempted to suggest we take two step route: >> >> - ship 2.11 with the "atime has been there and we won't regress it" >> shape, while cooking the "cloexec is semantically more >> important" version in 'next' during the feature freeze >> >> - immediately after 2.11 merge it to 'master' for 2.12 to make sure >> there is no fallout. > > That sounds reasonable, though I'd consider jumping straight to "NOATIME > is not worth it; drop it" as the patch for post-2.11. That endgame is fine by me too. Thanks for a sanity-check.