Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Jim Meyering]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
>> If this sort of bootstrap were changed to make copies rather than
>> symbolic links, it would be much more of a pain to develop when
>> changes to both gnulib and an application are being debugged.  It
>> would be far too easy to mistakenly edit the coreutils copy of a
>> gnulib file rather than the original; and later, when everything is
>> checked in, some of the gnulib fixes would be lost.
>
> An alternative approach would be to rely on a versioning system which
> supports easy branching, like git. Here is a rough idea how this could
> work:
>
> Use three branches
>   - master = the code which you pull and push from/to the public repository.
>   - autogened = the code, augmented with files from gnulib and (optionally)
>     other files brought in by autopoint, automake etc.
>   - work = the code you work on.
>
> The branches 'autogened' and 'work' are private - they exist only in your
> local repository.
...
> In the current state, the set of commands to use is so complicated that
> I wouldn't use it myself: I have not much experience with git.
> Can someone simplify this and polish the rough edges?

Hi Bruno,

I find it unacceptably complicated, too,
and don't see any significant simplifications.