Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:27:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> The above 6 and 12 are yanked out of thin air and I am of course open to >> tweaking them, but I think the above order of events would be workable. > > Is that really 6 and 12 months, or "6/12 months or at the next major > release boundary, whichever is later". Sigh... I thought you by now knew me better than that... Yes, I didn't say it explicitly because I thought it was too obvious, which was a mistake. These except for the ones that are preparation (such as "prepare daemon so that future clients can ask with non-dash forms") need to happen at release boundaries, but these 6/12 months figures set the minimums. E.g. even if we had 6 week release cycles and 1.7.0 were to be done 6 weeks after 1.6.0, that is still too early for the client side to switch asking for "git program". -- 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
