Re: ghostscript improvements in gub

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:50PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 31-08-2010 om 22:07 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
> Percival:
> 
> > Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the
> > merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the
> > 2.13.30-tagged version of GUB ?
> 
> The changes in GUB are steps towards upstream integration.
> IWBN to "test" those at one time or another, and although
> they "should work", better not use them if you want stability

Meh, we haven't hit alpha yet, so I might as well toss them into
2.13.32.  If there's any problem that isn't resolved quickly, I'll
drop back to the previous commit.

I'm feeling much more comfortable with git tags these days (well,
more comfortable with git in general; I'm now using it for a
couple of personal and university projects), so I don't have a
problem trying out different branches or even specific commits in
GUB.  :)

Cheers,
- Graham