On Tuesday 08 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > [dropping automake@] > > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-04 11:37: > > >> 2. Create a new public branch `msvc-for-1.11', based off of > >> `msvc'. > >> > > I've instead based `msvc-for-1.11' on a merge of `branch-1.11' > > and `msvc'. > > The history is a maze. It's very hard to follow what's going on. > For what concerns the 1.11.2 release, you shoud only be interested in the `maint' and `msvc-for-1.11' branches (whose roles I hope are obvious).
In the long term, having a README document or so that explains what the current branches are meant to accomplish and how they're organized would probably be worthwhile, and could avoid a lot of confusion. In the meantime, removing some already-merged and now inactive branches (e.g., `prove' and `remove-deansification') might simplify the situation a bit. Will do shortly. > Is it > really desired to merge back maint and master into the work branches > with such extreme frenzy? > I'd say yes, to avoid potential future bigger conflicts when merging. Such conflicts are bound to be more difficult to resolve, firstly because they will be bigger, and secondly (and most importantly) because the will involve much more changes done in a wider temporal interval -- changes whose details or exact reason we might even have forgotten in the meantime! > >> 3. Commit a change in this new branch, ensuring that either: > >> [3a] the `extra-portability' warnings are *not* fatal, even > >> with `Werror'; or that: > >> [3b] the `extra-portability' warnings are *not* enabled by > >> `-Wall'. > >> And we should also tweak the NEWS file accordingly (but not > >> the docuemntation IMHO). > >> This change is *not* to be merged into either master or msvc, > >> obviously. > >> > > I went for [3b]. Attached is what I've pushed. > > The below patch (pushed as obvious) takes care of a couple of lapses. > Thanks for doing that. Regards, Stefano
