[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] tests: add AM_PROG_AR to help losing archivers

From: Peter Rosin
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: add AM_PROG_AR to help losing archivers
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:30:44 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 11:29:
> On 02/01/2012 10:40 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On the "drop maint" line of discussion, I don't think that's a wise
>> move.  If you drop maint - and release directly from branch-1.11 -
>> you'd "leak" e.g. the version change in into master the
>> next time you merge branch-1.11 into master,
> Nope: I would just get a one-line merge conflict, very easy to solve
> (just keep the version from master, and you're done -- difficult to
> mess this up).  Much better than the present situation IMHO.

Well, the present situation is just confusing, so I don't think you
should compare with that.  Compare with the ideal situation of a
maint very similar to the release branch instead, and never allowing
them to diverge.

>> and you don't want
>> that.  So, instead you'd create a release branch off of branch-1.11
>> and do the version change there, but then you'd want to base the
>> next release off of the old release.  And by then you are back to
>> square one with the future branch-1.11 being the equivalent of the
>> current maint.
> See above.
>> I think the rule should be that maint should be kept *very* close
>> to branch-1.11 (only differing by release related commits such as the
>> above example with the version in  This isn't true
>> today (e.g. msvc is merged into branch-1.11).
> Keeping maint and branch-1.11 very close was the plan initially, but we
> (and I think it was you who pressed for this ;-) decided that the MSVC
> stuff was better to be published in the 1.11.x line (although disabled
> by default), rather than left as "vaporware" in master only.  I still
> think that was a good decision, all in all.

Yes, I know I'm not innocent.  But you are not either, you were the one
pressing for hiding the warning making the msvc branch unsuitable for
maint :-)  In hindsight, it should probably have been done differently,
that's all.  But I still don't know how, given that msvc had already
been merged into master in it's master incantation when the divergence
originated (at least I think it had).


reply via email to

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