Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> This is already in 'next' X-<; reverting a merge is cheap but I >> prefer to do so when we already have a replacement. > > I force-pushed (see https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/400), and > once Stolee approves, he will submit v3. This will only change the > commit message, though, as I disagree that hard-coding the URL would be > an improvement: the nice thing about a package management system is that > the user does not need to know the details (or need to know if the > details change, like, ever). If this were meant for the upcoming release, I would rather see us copy a butt-ugly-but-known-working procedure if we have one this close to -rc1. If the hard-coded URL ever changes, the procedure we would be copying from would be broken anyway. But I agree 100% that we should take a conceptually cleaner approach for the longer term. Let's replace the original one with this and cook in 'next'---it would be ideal if the ugly-but-know-working one be updated to match in the meantime, but if it is bypassing package management for a reason (the upstream just publishes the URL to download from without packaging it properly, for example?), that would not be possible, and it is OK if that is the case. Thanks.
