On 12/09/2011 10:52 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> I've now queued the patch for after the 1.11.2 release.
>
And now I've pushed it (after having rebased it on latest maint).
Regards,
Stefano
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
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
On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >> > +## times in the past, when we used to keep the generated Makefile.in
> >> > +## committed into the automake's git repository.
> >>
> >> s/the.*repository/version-control Makefile.in/
> >>
> > You mean "version-controlled Makefile.
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
>> And all of that is duplicated in the ChangeLog file diffs below.
>>
>> Are you interested in generating ChangeLog from git logs?
>>
> Absolutely, but that's for a later change. Also, before going down that
Glad to hear it.
> road, I'd like to have a vim syntax fil
Jim, thanks for the super-quick feedback!
On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > I went for a middle-ground solution (sorta), by having the differences
> > generated on-the-fly. This entails a decise slowdown, which is
> > however absolutely bearable even o
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> I went for a middle-ground solution (sorta), by having the differences
> generated on-the-fly. This entails a decise slowdown, which is
> however absolutely bearable even on my slow desktop. See the attached
> patch.
>
> The code is a little more complicated than I'd li
Hi Jim.
On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> I would suggest to keep the generated files on a separate branch
> just for them (i.e., with no other content), and autogenerate, and
> auto-commit/push to that branch whenever a change in generated file is
> induced by a change on the pr
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Jim.
>
> On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> > On 12/09/2011 10:17 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> >> Another patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release.
>> >>
>> >> While conceptually very simple, this patch is quite large in size,
>> >> since the dif
Hi Jim.
On Friday 09 December 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > On 12/09/2011 10:17 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> >> Another patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release.
> >>
> >> While conceptually very simple, this patch is quite large in size,
> >> since the diffs contain all the text of the remo
On Friday 09 December 2011, Andrew W wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 16:12, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 12/09/2011 02:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ralf, It sounds like you're confusing with build-from-release-tarball.
> >
> > No, I am not.
> >
> >
> >> There is a very long tradition of
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 02:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Hi Ralf, It sounds like you're confusing with build-from-release-tarball.
> No, I am not.
Then you must be looking at different projects than I am.
There are hundreds of GNU projects that have stopped
version-controlling genera
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 16:12, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 02:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ralf, It sounds like you're confusing with build-from-release-tarball.
>
> No, I am not.
>
>
>> There is a very long tradition of maintainer/developer build-from-VC
>> requiring more (and ver
On 12/09/2011 02:21 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Hi Ralf, It sounds like you're confusing with build-from-release-tarball.
No, I am not.
There is a very long tradition of maintainer/developer build-from-VC
requiring more (and very recent) tools than usual.
No, this is not true. Probably all GNU pro
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 10:17 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Another patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release.
>>
>> While conceptually very simple, this patch is quite large in size,
>> since the diffs contain all the text of the removed configure and
>> Makefile.in files; so I'
On 12/09/2011 10:17 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Another patch to be applied after the 1.11.2 release.
While conceptually very simple, this patch is quite large in size,
since the diffs contain all the text of the removed configure and
Makefile.in files; so I've attached it compressed.
Regards,
16 matches
Mail list logo
