Re: [PATCH 3/4] Makefile: use the sha1collisiondetection submodule by default

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>,
	Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Makefile: use the sha1collisiondetection submodule by default
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 05:08:45 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqh8t5jp9e.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bmjdscdr.fsf@evledraar.booking.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFy?= =?utf-8?B?IEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:22:08 +0100")

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

>> I'm not sure how I feel about this. I see your point that there's no
>> real value in maintaining two systems indefinitely.  At the same time, I
>> wonder how much value the submodule strategy is actually bringing us.
>>
>> IOW, are we agreed that the path forward is to get everybody using the
>> submodule?
> ...
> In no particular order:
>
>  * I don't feel strongly about 2-4/4 in this series. I just hacked this
>    up because it occurred to me that I'd left this sha1dc stuff in some
>    in-between state and we'd talked about eventually moving forward with
>    this.

Good.

>    We've had two releases with the submodule being purely optional, if
>    we're going to keep it it seems logical to start at least using it by
>    default.

With a need for a patch like 1/4, I suspect two release cycles is
way too short for making a move like 2-4/4, though.