Re: [PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Pushed to maint now (so that I will be able to take advantage > of it in the Automake 1.11.2 release process); attached is the > definitive patch. ... > diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING > index b6f214f..755bffd 100644 > --- a/HACKING > +++ b/HACKING > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ >

[FYI] maint merged into branch-1.11

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
commit 81ef91cff6070cb603ed173990795e6f61e83477 Merge: 8215976 9508ef3 Author: Stefano Lattarini AuthorDate: Sat Dec 10 20:31:40 2011 +0100 Commit: Stefano Lattarini CommitDate: Sat Dec 10 20:31:40 2011 +0100 Merge branch 'maint' into branch-1.11 * maint: release: don'

[FYI] {branch-1.11} maint: post-release version bump

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* configure.ac, NEWS: Bump version to 1.11.1c, as per HACKING suggestions. --- ChangeLog |6 ++ Makefile.in|2 +- NEWS |4 ++-- aclocal.m4 |2 +- configure | 20 +++

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Miscellaneous improvements for HACKING and description of release procedure

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Monday 05 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > No code change here, only small updates to HACKING and README-alpha > files, especially for what concerns the description of the release > procedure for automake. > > I will push to maint in a couple of day if there is no objection. > > Stefa

Re: [PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Pushed to maint now (so that I will be able to take advantage of it in the Automake 1.11.2 release process); attached is the definitive patch. Thanks, Stefano From 9508ef35139a066171cb6aedfa63000482477495 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Message-Id: <9508ef35139a066171cb6aedfa63000482477495.1323544363.

Re: [PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> > * Makefile.am (git-dist): The developer might have already tested > >> > >> "might" Hah. > >> > > "The developers shall test exten

Re: [PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> > * Makefile.am (git-dist): The developer might have already tested >> >> "might" Hah. >> > "The developers shall test extensively before finally creating > the release tarball" would sound

Re: [PATCH] configure: print proper message for test releases

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > On Thursday 08 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> Another minor maintenance patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release. > >> But this is not a good reason not to ask for a review earlier ;-) > >> > > And

Re: [FYI] {branch-1.11} news: fix other blunders

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > * NEWS: Remove some duplicated entries, and reorder some others, > > and rename a subsection. This blunders are probably due to a > > botched merge. > > --- > > ChangeLog |7 +++ > > NEWS | 29 +

Re: [PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > * Makefile.am (git-dist): The developer might have already tested > > "might" Hah. > "The developers shall test extensively before finally creating the release tarball" would sound better? :-) > > extensively before

Re: [FYI] {branch-1.11} news: fix other blunders

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > * NEWS: Remove some duplicated entries, and reorder some others, > and rename a subsection. This blunders are probably due to a > botched merge. > --- > ChangeLog |7 +++ > NEWS | 29 + > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20

Re: [PATCH] configure: print proper message for test releases

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Thursday 08 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Another minor maintenance patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release. >> But this is not a good reason not to ask for a review earlier ;-) >> > And consider the diffs below squashed in. > > Sorry for the noise,

Re: [PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > * Makefile.am (git-dist): The developer might have already tested "might" Hah. > extensively before finally creating the release tarball; so don't > run "make distcheck" here on his behalf; instead ... > * HACKING (Release procedure): ... state here that "make check" >

[PATCH] release: don't run "make distcheck" automatically

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* Makefile.am (git-dist): The developer might have already tested extensively before finally creating the release tarball; so don't run "make distcheck" here on his behalf; instead ... * HACKING (Release procedure): ... state here that "make check" and "make distcheck" should be run before calling

Re: [PATCH] dist-xz, dist-bzip2: don't hard-code -9: honor envvar settings

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> I have not taken the time to write a commit hook to warn me when > >> a git log fails to match the corresponding ChangeLog delta. > >> It doesn't seem worthwhile.

Re: [PATCH] dist-xz, dist-bzip2: don't hard-code -9: honor envvar settings

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I have not taken the time to write a commit hook to warn me when >> a git log fails to match the corresponding ChangeLog delta. >> It doesn't seem worthwhile. >> > Absolutely agreed; especially because, as long as the

Re: [PATCH] dist-xz, dist-bzip2: don't hard-code -9: honor envvar settings

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 10 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > I have not taken the time to write a commit hook to warn me when > a git log fails to match the corresponding ChangeLog delta. > It doesn't seem worthwhile. > Absolutely agreed; especially because, as long as the ChangeLog is version-controlled,

Re: [PATCH] {maint} repo: don't commit generated files in the git repository anymore

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Friday 09 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: >> > >> > That looks like a fine solution, though I haven't tried it yet. >> > >> I did for a few simple cases (on Linux), it seems to work fine. Before >> committing

Re: [PATCH] dist-xz, dist-bzip2: don't hard-code -9: honor envvar settings

2011-12-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > There are few problems with it though, that I've fixed. > More details below. Hi Stefano, Thanks for the thorough review and for correcting my errors. > On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Today I noticed that automake-generated Makefile's dist-xz rule >

Re: [PATCH] configure: print proper message for test releases

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Thursday 08 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Another minor maintenance patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release. > But this is not a good reason not to ask for a review earlier ;-) > And consider the diffs below squashed in. Sorry for the noise, Stefano -*-*-*- diff --git a/Cha

[FYI] {branch-1.11} news: fix other blunders

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
* NEWS: Remove some duplicated entries, and reorder some others, and rename a subsection. This blunders are probably due to a botched merge. --- ChangeLog |7 +++ NEWS | 29 + 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/C

Re: [PATCH] {maint} repo: don't commit generated files in the git repository anymore

2011-12-10 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Friday 09 December 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > > > > That looks like a fine solution, though I haven't tried it yet. > > > I did for a few simple cases (on Linux), it seems to work fine. Before > committing I'll try it out on Solaris and a