Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This is probably incorrect, but you wouldn't know until something failed >> in the `linux32` job. > > Yeah, that was what I was afraid to see. > >> I already have a correct fix in >> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/4112/commits/b59c1e33fa62029f8d5dca801a8afb480514140c >> and was only waiting for the patch at the root of this here mail thread to >> advance further so I could contribute that fix, along with other >> replacements for deprecated operations. > > Wonderful. > >> Maybe we can move these changes forward in a more orderly manner, with >> Oscar's patch advancing to `next` once it is done, and the other patches >> following after that? > > That was what I was planning to do anyway. Thanks. Eh, I should have made my intention clear. I'll drop this one (as I posted it primarily to fish out those who are interested in and more capable than I am at clearing the deprecation warnings from the CI), will mark Oscar's for 'next' (if I haven't done so already), wait for your updates and queue them on a topic forked from Oscar's (or on the same Oscar's topic), and cook them for the first or the second batch of the next cycle. Thanks.
