Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> If this sort of bootstrap were changed to make copies rather than >> symbolic links, it would be much more of a pain to develop when >> changes to both gnulib and an application are being debugged. It >> would be far too easy to mistakenly edit the coreutils copy of a >> gnulib file rather than the original; and later, when everything is >> checked in, some of the gnulib fixes would be lost. > > An alternative approach would be to rely on a versioning system which > supports easy branching, like git. Here is a rough idea how this could > work: > > Use three branches > - master = the code which you pull and push from/to the public repository. > - autogened = the code, augmented with files from gnulib and (optionally) > other files brought in by autopoint, automake etc. > - work = the code you work on. > > The branches 'autogened' and 'work' are private - they exist only in your > local repository. ... > In the current state, the set of commands to use is so complicated that > I wouldn't use it myself: I have not much experience with git. > Can someone simplify this and polish the rough edges?
Hi Bruno, I find it unacceptably complicated, too, and don't see any significant simplifications.
