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

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May 28, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 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.

In any case, if you do a partial merge that ends up without config
tags, you're just breaking MLB completely.  It needs tags to work
properly.

If we're going to do the merge piece by piece, I believe it would be
best to copy MLB over to mainline right now, then work in the branch,
so that mainline remains stable.

> so merging from HEAD to MLB is more work than vice versa.

I don't buy that.  There are lots of changes in MLB that haven't made
it to HEAD either, so it's certainly as much work one way as it is the
other.

> 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

The point is to remain with a stable copy of MLB somewhere.

> 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.

Isn't it just a matter of taking the patch that got you rid of
ltconfig.in in favor or libtool.m4 and applying it to MLB, except for
the actual ltconfig.in and libtool.m4 files, that will require more
careful handling?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me