Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> That said, that seems to me like a lot of work to avoid adding some >> patches to "next" that belong in "next" anyway. I understand why the >> Git for Windows maintainer does not always have time to upstream >> promptly, which is why I suggest working with him to find a way to >> help with that. >> >> If there's something I'm missing and Git is actually an uncooperative >> upstream like the cases you've mentioned, then I'd be happy to learn >> about that so we can fix it, too. > > That's one and valid way to look at it, convergence would be ideal. > > Another way to look at it, which is closer to what I was thinking about, > is to just view GFW as some alternate universe "next" branch (which by > my count is ~2-3k commits ahead of master[1]). You could view it that way, but I don't. Many Git for Windows patches have never even visited the Git mailing list. Thanks, Jonathan
