Subject: Re: [BUG] Performance regression due to #33d4221: write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:00:06 -0700

Stefan Saasen <[email-masked]> writes:

> Anyway, long story short. We're interested to help but I'm not
> entirely sure what that would look like at the moment. Are there
> formed ideas floating around or would you be looking for some form of
> proposal instead?

I am not proposing anything or looking for proposals myself,
actually.  It is just somebody expressed interest in having tested
older maintenance track that is kept alive in the past, so I was
merely trying to help connect you with that old thread.

If those who are interested in having such LTS track(s) need
something specific from me, and if it will not be unrealistic
maintenance burden, I am willing to help.  That's all.

For example, LTS group for whatever reason may nominate 2.2.x track
as a base that they want to keep alive longer than other maintenance
tracks and promise to test changes to them to keep it stable.  Then
I can help the effort by making sure people's bugfix patches would
apply down to 2.2.x track (often people make mistake of using newer
facility to fix or test the fix for an ancient bug, and bugfix topic
branch ends up forked at a point much newer than where it should
be).