Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> OK. Should this go directly to 'master', as the isatty thing is >> already in? > > From my point of view, it is not crucial. The next Git for Windows version > will have it, of course, and Hannes is always running with his set of > patches, he can easily cherry-pick this one, too.
What hat were you wearing when you said the above "From my point of view"? Were you the "Git for Windows" maintainer, or were you a contributor and a member of the Git development community that works to improve the upstream? If it was not clear, I was asking the question to you wearing the latter hat. To put it differently, what is our position, as the upstream developers, toward those who are on Windows and wants to build from the source? It's not just Hannes. Is our position "unless you are extremely competent and are willing to cherry-pick missing things from Git for Windows tree as needed, we recommend you to build Git for Windows source instead"? It is inevitable that the upstream lags behind in Windows specific changes. Even though you have been trickling Windows specific changes (both things in compat/ and also changes to the generic parts, updating "c == '/'" to "is_dir_sep(c)") in, and I have been accepting them for the past few years, in order to reduce the size of the patch pile Git for Windows needs on top of the upstream, until the patch pile becomes empty, it will always be the case. So I won't object if that were our position. I just need to know what it is to adjust my expectations, and as far as I am concerned, you and Hannes are the two people whose thinking I'd trust regarding what to do with/to Windows users; even though I keep saying "our" position, I am asking yours and Hannes's. Thanks.
