On 6 October 2011 21:04, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> the expectation is that you already have all tests
>> passing before you start the release procedure.
>
> Exactly. It makes no sense to work on the packaging details of
> code that doesn't even pass its self-tests. So, if the d
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> the expectation is that you already have all tests
> passing before you start the release procedure.
Exactly. It makes no sense to work on the packaging details of
code that doesn't even pass its self-tests. So, if the developer
is not yet in the phase where releasing is app
On 6 October 2011 00:54, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> In a big package, "make check" will take, say, 10 minutes and
> "make distcheck" say 30 minutes. When I'm preparing a release,
> it takes me at most 1 or 2 iterations to get "make check" work
> fine, whereas often it takes me 5 iterations until "mak
Hi Reuben,
> Anything that reasonably reduces the number of manual steps here has
> to be a good thing. I combine two sets of make targets:
> ...
> +make check syntax-check distcheck
But that's probably not how people actually do it.
In a big package, "make check" will take, say, 10 minutes
Anything that reasonably reduces the number of manual steps here has
to be a good thing. I combine two sets of make targets:
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 76607bb..1410875 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2011-10-06 Reuben Thomas
+
+ Simplify README-relea
