Re: Merge Schedule [was Re: last minute fixes]

[Gary V . Vaughan]

On Monday 28 May 2001  4:08 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 27, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > While making inroads into (3), I have started a new ChangeLog and merged
> > libtool.m4 and ltmain.in from MLB to HEAD, which covers (2) as well.  I
> > suspect that the tags support will fall out of merging lt-cf*.in and
> > ltconfig.in into libtool.m4.
>
> I really don't understand why you're doing this.  Why not do the
> equivalent of proceeding development in the branch, except for moving
> the current state of the branch onto the trunk?  The way you're doing
> this is exactly the most difficult way to do it.  Unless there are
> changes in HEAD that are missing in MLB, in which case the merge
> should go the other way.

The original change in HEAD to move the contents of ltconfig.in into 
libtool.m4 was *really* hard.  Everything was extremely sensitive,  and the 
double configure required at bootstrap was difficult to get right.  I don't 
want to go through that again on MLB, and hence merging from MLB into the 
already ltconfigless HEAD fills me with less dread.

We have only been good about porting patches between MLB and HEAD in the last 
few months (maybe 12 or so), and the parts that made it into HEAD but not MLB 
will be buried deep in the ChangeLog.  I don't want to try and find them 
directly by looking at diffs to figure out which changes were ported and 
which were not (and which were not appropriate), so merging from HEAD to MLB 
is more work than vice versa.

Since we are calling branch-1-4 mainline while the merge takes place, there 
seems to be little point in merging from HEAD to MLB (and perturbing the MLB 
code) and then having to merge from MLB back into HEAD when it is done.  It 
is much less work to just do the merge into HEAD, where we want the code to 
be in any place.

I realise that it would be even easier to copy MLB onto HEAD, but then I 
would have to eliminate ltconfig all over again, and that was really 
difficult.  Also it is much more thorough (in terms of not losing patches 
made in isolation to HEAD more than 12 months ago) to do a manual merge like 
this, just once, and be done.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
  ())_.  Gary V. Vaughan     gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
  ( '/   Research Scientist  http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk        ,_())____
  / )=   GNU Hacker          http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool   \'      `&
`(_~)_   Tech' Author        http://sources.redhat.com/autobook    =`---d__/