Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Since then we've heard about a few related (non-security) regressions. > I'd like to avoid giving people an excuse not to upgrade, so this > morning[1] I promised a discussion of what I'd like to see in a 2.26.3 > release to help with that. Thanks for starting this. I'll have chances to comment on other areas you listed, but since I've answered on v2-proto stuff to somebody else already... > The protocol version change was painful for users that fetch in the > same repo from linux-next and other linux remotes[5]. The problem has > been isolated and fixed, so we could either apply the revert or apply > the fixes[6]. The demote patch hasn't even hit 'master'. My preference is to merge the demotion down to 'master' and 'maint' while merging down this fix to 'next' and to 'master'. And immediately revert the demotion on 'master', which will make the tip of 'master' with v2 as the default, with "this" fix. That way, those who want to help us polish the code further for the next release would use v2 as default with the proposed fix for this breakage and can hunt for other breakages in v2, while those on the maintenance track (and v2.26.3 JNeider wants to see happen soon) would revert to the original protocol as default. In short, my preference is to ship 2.26.3 with the "demote v2 from default", and hopefully try 2.27 with "v2 with negotiation fix" and hope people won't find any other remaining glitches in 2.27. After that, we may want to merge the negotiation fix down to 2.26.x track but I am not comfortable merging it in a release on the maintenance track with the timeframe we seem to be talking about (i.e. a few weeks, presumably).
