From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAA4C433EF for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 02:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49228611CB for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 02:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232964AbhKDCGF (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2021 22:06:05 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:52702 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231945AbhKDCGE (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2021 22:06:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 6535 invoked by uid 109); 4 Nov 2021 02:03:27 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Nov 2021 02:03:27 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27354 invoked by uid 111); 4 Nov 2021 02:03:28 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 22:03:28 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 22:03:26 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonas Kittner Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase -i: fix rewording with --committer-date-is-author-date Message-ID: References: <101071b2-0b7d-5ee8-ca81-171e08a1ffdf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 10:44:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I'm happy enough with it. I don't know what the plan is for the -rc > > period, though. AFAICT the bug is in v2.33.1, so it's not technically a > > v2.34-rc problem. It could wait for the next maint release. > > Hmph, if it was in v2.33.0 then it is not, but if it was introduced > between v2.33.0 and v2.33.1, then it is a problem for the current > cycle, no? I guess it depends how you consider the cycle. It's in v2.33.1 but not v2.33.0, so yes, anybody going from v2.33.0 to v2.34.0 will see it as a regression. I don't have any problem with fixing it for v2.34.0, and I think the fix Phillip provided is minimally invasive. I just didn't consider it quite the same as a bug that had never been in a released version at all (and I know you are often hesitant to throw too much into the -rc part of the cycle). -Peff