On Fri, Sep 28 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> That's one and valid way to look at it, convergence would be ideal. >> >> Another way to look at it, which is closer to what I was thinking about, >> is to just view GFW as some alternate universe "next" branch (which by >> my count is ~2-3k commits ahead of master[1]). > > You could view it that way, but I don't. Many Git for Windows patches > have never even visited the Git mailing list. Not to beat this point to death, just replying because I'm not sure if we're talking past each other, or if you're just vehemently making the point that these patches *really* should be sent to the ML (which I don't disagree with at all). I meant "alternative universe 'next'" in the sense that it's a published branch that's shipped to people and is consistently ahead of master, not that the same process of sending patches to git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has been used to generate it. In the case of GFW they have their own internal contribution mechanism, GitHub PRs etc., and only eventually submit things to the ML.
