Re: Can't get a patch through because of weekly development releases.

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:41PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I think that writing a 5-10 line shell script for easily updating
> > version numbers in a patch/commit would be much less work than
> > checking all the above, though.
> 
> The idea was to create a scheme where this more or less happens
> automatically.

I got that -- but in this case, I think that the work involved in
making it happen automatically outweighs the benefit and manual
work that it would save.  My estimation is that the shell script
option is the most efficient use of time, considering both the
time of feature-writing developers and the build-system-modifying
developers.

For the record, I'd call the shell script 15 minutes (Carl already
posted the commands, but I suspect it can be done in a "cleaner"
manner with rebase or git commit --amend or something like that),
and the build system modifying 5 hours.  And I don't imagine that
we'll have many new features with these convert-ly problems.

Of course, other people might have different estimates for the
shell script time, build system modyfing time, and the amount of
patches that this would help with.  If you think it's worth going
the build-system-modifying route, by all means do so... just don't
complain later on that the build system is a complete mess and
patchwork of duct tape, and that it would take much longer than
adding such a feature *should* take.  :|

Cheers,
- Graham