[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merging etc
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: merging etc |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:22:03 -0700 |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> I tend to believe the opposite: the description of small changes are
easier
> to understand than description of combined changes.
>
> The usual simplification is to replace
>
> * foo.c (fooo_bar): Call mumble.
> ...
> * foo.c (fooo_bar): New function
>
> with
>
> * foo.c (fooo_bar): New function
>
> since (from the point of view of the trunk) the whole
> thing is new.
Can you please clarify, is crunching the log a blocker for the merge?
Or can the merge proceed, add the logs with the dates changed to the
date of the merge, and add an entry in FOR-RELEASE that the logs need
to be processed?
- Re: merging etc, (continued)
- Re: merging etc, David Kastrup, 2007/08/24
- Bootstrap error, B. Anyos, 2007/08/24
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/25
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/23
- Re: merging etc, Stefan Monnier, 2007/08/23
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/24
- Re: merging etc, Stefan Monnier, 2007/08/24
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/25
- Re: merging etc,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: merging etc, Glenn Morris, 2007/08/25
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/25
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/22
- Re: merging etc, Glenn Morris, 2007/08/25
- Re: merging etc, Glenn Morris, 2007/08/25
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/26
- Re: merging etc, Richard Stallman, 2007/08/26
- Re: merging etc, Dan Nicolaescu, 2007/08/26
- Re: merging etc, Dan Nicolaescu, 2007/08/26
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: merging etc, Miles Bader, 2007/08/29