[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bash vs. sh
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Bash vs. sh |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:28:23 +0200 |
"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> > I was hoping for something more formal: all developers commit their
>> > bootstrap-inner.m4sh changes to gnulib instead of to their own projects.
>>
>> That's already the idea, using gnulib's bootstrap.
>
> Ok, thanks. I wasn't aware.
>
>> > Writing bootstrap to download bootstrap-inner.m4sh automatically might
>> > help encourage this practice. Then I don't have to hunt through the logs
>> > of several other projects in order to avoid reinventing bootstrapping
>> > fixes.
>
> If the above approach is too restrictive, maybe gnulib's bootstrap script
> could at least contain a comment explaining that it should be kept in sync
> with gnulib. That might help out sheltered little developers like me. :)
Good idea.
I was going to suggest this:
Send a properly git-attributed patch (i.e., trivial for me to
apply with "git am your-patch" -- see coreutils' HACKING for details)
and I'll apply it.
but then realized that Eric might be revamping the whole thing.
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/20
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Message not available
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/24