Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It's also proposing to replace Glen's one-patch[6], which is working > around the problem shown in the test added in 1/10 here. Per > downthread of [7] I think Glen was aiming for getting a more narrow > fix in case we split off 9/10 here into some later fix. > > As we're fixing an edge case in something that's always been broken > (and thus wouldn't backport) I think it's better to just fix the > problem directly, rather than introducing new "--super-prefix" use, > just to take it away later. I still prefer that we take the one-patch to unbreak new releases, because partial clone + submodules is absolutely broken (e.g. it's already causing quite a lot of headaches at $DAYJOB) and the patch is obviously harmless. And more importantly, it lets us take our time with this series and get it right without time pressure. It's not as pressing as, e.g. a regression fix, but it does render certain Git setups unusable. With regards to urgency and when to choose "small and harmless fixes vs bigger and better fixes", I think Junio has generally made those calls in the past. @Taylor if you have an opinion, I'd love to hear it. > 6. https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1378.git.git.1668210935360.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > 7. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221111.86fsepmbhe.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
