groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] new automake system


From: Bertrand Garrigues
Subject: Re: [Groff] new automake system
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 01:01:59 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

Hi all,

On Sat, Oct 04 2014 at 01:37:44 AM, Bertrand Garrigues <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03 2014 at 06:44:34 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Looks good, thanks a lot!  I've just minor comments, see below.
>> Please commit.
>
> Commited with your fixes on master.  I'll cherry-pick this commit on
> automake2 soon (I have to fix some comments in the `TESTS' file).

Changed my mind.  I haven't cherry-pick the fix of X11 path on automake2
because it will introduce one more difference with the reference master
commit from which the branch was created, and the comparison would be
less clear.

> After that I'll work on rebasing automake2.

As for the rebase, I won't do it on automake2 because it will disturb
people that are reviewing this development.  Therefore I've created a
new `automake3' branch from `automake2', and rebased it against master
(it means that all new commits introduced by this development were moved
after the most recent commit on master).  Thus, automake2 won't move and
should be compared against the master commit where it was branched from,
and automake3 will be kept synchronized with master.

I have only done some basic testing on automake3 (checked the build,
install, uninstall, clean, dist, distcheck) so I need to do more tests
and also to update a few things in the TESTS file.  Please note that I
might proceed to some history changes on automake3.  I've already
changed history on a commit related to gideal because of a development
made on master after automake2 was created. This caused the sha1 of this
commit and subsequent ones to change.

Also, how will we proceed when we will consider that this automake
migration is ready for merge into master?  The normal process would be
to squash all the commits into a single one on master, but given the
high number of files impacted, it might be better to have all the
commits into master?  In this case should I need to add a entry in
ChangeLog per commit on automake3?  Also, I will need to change the
dates of the commits (currently the first commit related to automake on
`automake3', which comes after the most recent commit in master, is
dated in August).

Regards,

--
Bertrand Garrigues



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]