[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:54:59 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050305)

[Moved to libtool list]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote on libtool-patches:
I kept quiet a while ago when Bob first suggested ditching the CVS
branch-2-0 and releasing CVS HEAD as 2.0 after a bit of stabilization.
Now I estimate that, for us combined, it might save us a man month
(whoohoo, maybe even a mythical one :) or more.

This would be a strong argument to do it, IMVHO.

The only problem is: I don't know how we can get CVS HEAD to work fine
with released Autoconf/Automake versions.  ATM I'm not even sure which
issues there are:
- LTLIBOBJS in subdirs
- ?

The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next
release of all the other autotools[1], so we can't release HEAD as is without causing headaches for everyone else, because it relies on unreleased versions of the tools that are waiting for another libtool release.

branch-2-0 doesn't need to be perfect before we release it -- as long
as it has no known regressions, and good backwards compatibility, then
we can work out the wrinkles in patch releases.

I'm genuinely optimistic that we can release 1.9h within 2 weeks, possibly less. And maybe 2.0 can follow the week after if we've done
a good job of testing.


[1] Autoconf-2.60 needs M4-2.0 needs Libtool-2.0 (ISTR that
    Automake-1.10 is waiting on something here too, but I can't
    find a record of it in the archives).
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,}
Research Scientist   ( '/
GNU Hacker           / )=
Technical Author   `(_~)_

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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