On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> If cvs 1.11 doesn't talk with 1.12 I'll say there are nuts - minor > >> revisions should interoperate with end users not even thinking about > >> it. But 1.5.5 has in its changelog lots of deprecations and interop > >> changes. > >> > >> It's not good communication to label it 1.5.5. > > > > There indeed are handful scheduled removals. I do not mind declaring > > that 1.6.0 comes after 1.5.4, or just relabel the removal schedule for > > 1.6.0 and keep the scheduled change on hold a bit longer. I think Git development is dynamic enough to justify 1.6.0 right after 1.5.4. > By the way, I wonder if there would be packv4 in time for 1.6.0; > perhaps not enabled by default. I don't think so. First, if packv4 actually happens, it might justify v2.0.0 and not v1.6.0. But so far there were steady improvement made to the system even with the current pack format, so the return on the investment for packv4 is diminishing. The largest road block for packv4 at the moment is a complete refactoring of the tree walking code. Nicolas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
