Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

quoted text
> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html