[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Renaming NEWS

From: Glenn Morris
Subject: Re: Renaming NEWS
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 02:46:09 -0400
User-agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/)

David Kastrup wrote:

> Glenn Morris <address@hidden> writes:
>> It also seems time (again, as Kim said earlier) for a fresh
>> lisp/ChangeLog and a new lisp/ChangeLog.12. The right thing to do here
>> is create ChangeLog.12 as a new file with no arch tag, and move most
>> of the current contents of ChangeLog there, right?
> Including moving the arch tag, I suppose.

No, leaving the arch tag in lisp/ChangeLog would seem to make more
sense to me. Anyone who is using this tag must expect it to refer to
the "current lisp ChangeLog", not some random ChangeLog.NN.
ChangeLog.12, which will almost never be used, should get a new arch

> I don't think we really should sync anything from the release branch
> for now.  Fixes should make their way from the trunk to the release
> branch, not the other way round. 

It has happened the other way around ever since the branch was
created, and continues to do so.

> And they should be few enough that synching them manually between
> ChangeLog and ChangeLog should be workable

People seem to find Miles' automated merging of changes from release
branch to trunk useful.

> (arch would presumably want to synch between ChangeLog.12 and
> ChangeLog).

Which is why I don't think the arch tag should be moved to ChangeLog.12.

>> What do people think the best split date is? The base of the release
>> branch, or perhaps 2006-12-31, to match ChangeLog.11?
> Base of release branch would be my preference.

Mine too, I think.

reply via email to

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