On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:22:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 05:30:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * ps/document-breaking-changes (2024-06-04) 4 commits > >> - BreakingChanges: document that we do not plan to deprecate git-checkout > >> - BreakingChanges: document removal of grafting > >> - BreakingChanges: document upcoming change from "sha1" to "sha256" > >> - docs: introduce document to announce breaking changes > >> > >> The structure of the document that records longer-term project > >> decisions to deprecate/remove/update various behaviour has been > >> outlined. > >> > >> Getting there. > >> source: <cover.1717504292.git.ps@xxxxxx> > > > > Just to make sure I understand the status: do you expect me to do > > anything in this context? The latest version did have some final > > discussion, but from my point of view there wasn't anything actionable. > > Yeah, the only thing from the discussion that may be missing is this > one on [1/4]: > > - https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZmE8myG5c99UJeCA@tanuki/ > > But otherwise, the typofix for [3/4] in the thread has already been > amended in when the topic was queued, so we are almost there. > > I do not know if we want to explain the version number scheme there > (in your first response [*], you said you didn't want to give the > impression that the jump from 1.5.x to 1.6.0 was a huge deal, > implying a move from 2.45.x to 2.46.0 can be equally huge, but in a > later response [*], you seem to have liked the explanation to clear > potential confusion. If that is your final position, then [1/4] > needs updating (with a reroll or just saying "yeah, squash that > update in"). If that is not, we can go with what we have, but I > haven't heard an explicit "even though I said it is a good addition, > explanation of the historical version scheme is a bit out of place, > so let's scratch it", either. I have no strong preference myself, > but merging it to 'next' will close the door for you to say "ah, I > forgot about 1/4" later, so that was primarily what I was waiting > for. Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. I definitely think explaining the version schema is helpful in this context, so let me add it in and send another version of this patch series. Thanks! Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
