Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > One detail of the merging... I gather we're preferring to merge > ChangeLog fragments directly, so as to minimize the diffs between the > ChangeLogs in two branches,
Yep. > This seems fine to me, but it does mean we lose info about when the > change was actually added to the target branch. Shouldn't matter, usually, hopefully. > (Merged from CVS HEAD on 2007-01-28.) Sounds fine for a back-merge like this (I wouldn't see a need in a forward merge though). > I also had to specify a new encoding for the 1.8 ChangeLogs, Is that when you let emacs do a merge or update? The same happened to me and it offered some strange diffs. Ludovic put the right local var, but I suspect emacs doesn't look at it on the first C-x v v that brings it into the working copy. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
