On Jul 11, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
I decided to stop queuing changes in 4msysgit. Instead I'd like to
bring the diff between Junio's and 4msysgit's master to zero. This
seems to be achievable after Junio merged Hannes' MinGW changes.
I think all Windows-related changes to the git code base could be
discussed directly on the main git list and the msysgit list
would be
reserved for the MinGW/MSYS runtime environment and the installer.
I disagree. Judging from the mails I read on the git list, Junio
gets
really swamped by patches these days (what with our very
productive GSoC
students).
Sending the patches to the git list does not necessarily mean that
they are directly addressed to Junio. We discuss JGIT, EGIT, gitk,
and git gui patches on the list too. AFAIK, none of them are applied
by Junio directly but by the respective maintainers. We could handle
Windows-related patches similarly.
Then what is the msysGit list about?
I think the msysGit list could be useful for:
- Everything that is in the msysgit repo, i.e. the MinGW/MSYS
runtime environment and the installers.
- User questions, including the issue tracker.
No, I really disagree. Windows support is too large a thing, and
partly a
too disgusting one to bother the git list.
My understanding is that the mainline of git starts supporting the MinGW
port with version 1.6.0. The MinGW port is merged to Junio's master, so
the remaining differences between Junio's master and 4msysgit's master
should be removed and afterwards new changes should be discussed,
improved,
and applied to Junio's master anyway. This would also allow to directly
test Junio's next on Windows.
I really think that we should discuss the patches on the msysGit
list
first, whip them into shape, and then send them off.
Just think of those patches that were sent off, only to realize that
they were no longer needed. That should not have happened.
I intentionally sent the patches to show and discuss the differences
between the state of the MinGW port in Junio's master and in
4msysgit.
Some of the patches could be reverted in 4msysgit. But, at least one
patch was unrelated to MinGW and is now in master. Some other
patches
need more work and are currently improved. I think this was not a
waste
of time.
IMO we could have discussed first what is the current state on the
msysGit
list, and I would have commented there already on the patches that I
think
would no longer be needed.
Then the patch would have been sent off, and be in master, too.
The difference: it would have been more efficient. Those people who
can
test if something is still needed on Windows are on the msysGit list.
We do not really need to clutter git@vger more than necessary.
But git 1.6 will contain the MinGW port. Shouldn't related patches
then be discussed on git@vger?
Steffen
--
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
