Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > So it's similar to various packages that have "alternates" and are semi > or permanently forked, like emacs & xemacs, JDK etc., although I can't > recall one offhand that's quite similar to GFW v.s. git.git. > > My only stake in this is I thought it would be neat to be able to "apt > install git-for-windows", but I understand there's a support burden, but > if some *nix packagers are interested, maybe never taking it out of the > Debian equivalent of "experimental" and saying "this is unsupported, go > to the GFW tracker..." when bugs are filed would cut down on the support > burden. If someone else wants to package git-for-windows for Debian, I am happy to offer them advice and will not stop them. That said, that seems to me like a lot of work to avoid adding some patches to "next" that belong in "next" anyway. I understand why the Git for Windows maintainer does not always have time to upstream promptly, which is why I suggest working with him to find a way to help with that. If there's something I'm missing and Git is actually an uncooperative upstream like the cases you've mentioned, then I'd be happy to learn about that so we can fix it, too. Sincerely, Jonathan
